Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SEVEN HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received a message from the Speaker of the Sudan Constituent Assembly conveying congratulations and good wishes on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of Parliament. I will have the text placed in the Library where it can be seen by hon. Members.

PETITIONS

East Suffolk Railway Line (Closure)

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I have to present a Petition from the residents of East Suffolk because they feel that the closure of the East Suffolk railway line will bring grave hardship to the Petitioners and their families in removing a form of public transport. Over 10,000 petitioners have signed it.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray your Honourable House to take steps to ensure that this vital public service be retained.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Vietnam

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition which has been signed by 100,000 citizens of the United Kingdom. The Petition is addressed
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
Those who have signed it are gravely disturbed by the mounting cruelty and destruction of the war in Vietnam. They know to their deep regret that the war is already causing death, mutilation and

distress to men, women and children throughout Vietnam and they fear that it may extend to neighbouring territories and to the world. They therefore pray that Her Majesty's Government may act as a mediator for peace. They believe that peace could be obtained by a settlement based on the essentials of the Geneva Agreements of 1954. They are convinced that a further continuation of the fighting can do nothing to promote a settlement based on freedom and justice for the people of Vietnam but will only increasingly imperil their future prosperity and tranquillity and render more difficult their reconciliation. Moreover, while the fighting goes on the whole world situation is poisoned and it is impossible to make progress in strengthening the United Nations or constructive work for peace.
The Petition was drawn up and widely signed before the appointment of the mission of Prime Ministers by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but I have no doubt that those who signed it earnestly hope that the mission may have a swift and full success in bringing this brutal and anti-social conflict to an end.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Broadcasting and Television Services (Review)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he has yet completed his review of broadcasting and television services; what evidence he took to enable him to do so; by what principles he was guided; and if he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the moral, intellectual and other standards which he plans for future radio and television.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I am not yet ready to make a statement. I outlined the principles which would guide the Government in reaching its decisions in the debate on May 13th.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Postmaster-General realise that television and radio are very powerful instruments which could be used for the national good but which are not so used because they are lacking in taste, in instruction and in other qualities which would benefit the nation? Will he, therefore, take steps to improve these services so as to conform to the items which I have just mentioned?

Mr. Benn: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, programme content is for the broadcasting authorities. While accepting the importance of television and radio for the future of the country, I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that this constitutes an argument for great care before reaching a decision.

Mr. R. W. Elliot: While accepting what the Postmaster-General has said about programme content being the responsibility of the authorities concerned, may I ask whether he will continue to recognise that the content of programmes shown at the hour when young children are still up continues to be a matter of considerable concern to the parents of young children? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to exercise his supervision over this type of programme?

Mr. Benn: While very well understanding what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I must stress that I do not supervise, and neither has any Minister supervised, the programme content of the B.B.C. or I.T.A. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the comments made in this House about programmes are brought to the attention specifically of the governors of the two authorities whose responsibility it is in the ultimate.

Television Licence (Concessionary Fees)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the increase in the television licence to £5 presses harshly on people of bad hearing, especially old deaf people; and if he will

make arrangements to save such people from paying the increased cost of television licences.

Mr. Benn: I have considered with great sympathy the possibility of introducing concessionary fees for various groups, including people of bad hearing. But I have been forced to conclude that it would be impracticable to do so without creating serious anomalies.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that sympathy is not enough and that the scope of these services is narrowed as a result of people who are poor and who have bad hearing being deprived of the opportunity to use the services? Apart from sympathy, will he take steps to see that justice is done to them?

Mr. Benn: It was for the reasons which my hon. and learned Friend gave that I made inquiries about this possibility as soon as I took office. But the Post Office is not equipped to assess need. The increases in question come to about ¼d. per viewer per day, and I do not really believe that what my hon. and learned Friend proposes would be the best way of meeting the point he has in mind. The savings cards which are to be introduced in August will, I think, make some contribution to the solution of the general problem.

Mr. Chataway: Is the Postmaster-General still attracted to the idea of getting the B.B.C. to secure part of its revenue at least from advertising?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman's question is not framed in accordance with the points I made in the debate on 13th May. What I said then, and I repeat now, is that the Government are seriously anxious to consider any proposal which may be put before them.

Mr. Freeson: asked the Postmaster-General if he will suspend the fees for radio and television licences for retired persons living alone with incomes up to State pension level and National Assistance Board supplements.

Mr. Benn: I have examined this suggestion with the greatest possible care. However, I am now satisfied that such a scheme would create serious anomalies, and would involve administrative costs out of all proportion to its benefits.

Mr. Freeson: While having no doubt in my mind that the Minister has treated this matter very sympathetically, may I ask him to look at it once again? Will he bear in mind that it should be a fairly simple operation to work out a scheme of application in co-operation with the National Assistance Board and his Department which should not be over-weighty administratively and which would benefit economically very many pensioners and people of that standing? Will he bear very much in mind the fact that a considerable number of pensioners may not be able to use their television sets as a result of this proposed increase?

Mr. Benn: As I said to my hon. Friend, I shared his desire to help, but I am satisfied that such a scheme would not help the neediest people. It would involve a complicated verification of the need of "living alone". It would put the burden on licence holders. The Post Office would be required to assess need. The benefits would be very small indeed compared with even the renting of television sets which runs between 7s. and 10s. a week as against about 4d. a day for the licence. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the debate recently, this is not the best way of meeting this problem.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in the coming weeks? Why is it that local authorities in certain areas can provide free transport facilities to pensioners in deserving cases? There is no great administrative liability in this matter. Will he take into account the fact that, although the pensioners have had an increase in their pension, it is being rapidly eroded. The sum which they have to pay is a very serious hardship to most of these old people.

Mr. Benn: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the increases recently announced amount to ¼d. per viewer per day. This is the amount with which we are dealing when we talk about relieving them of the increase. I have looked at this very carefully, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has other considerations in mind which I have overlooked, I shall be glad, naturally, to consider them.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In the light of the examination made by the Minister

and his indication of sympathy, would he have discussions with the appropriate Minister for administering the National Assistance Board's scales to see whether something can be done through the Board to help this category of people?

Mr. Benn: I have considered the question of those who are on National Assistance, but the anomaly which would be created would be that a man who was not on National Assistance would not benefit whereas someone who was on National Assistance might benefit, and some people might be inclined or eligible to go on assistance in order to receive this type of benefit. I do not believe that this is practicable.

Reception, East Swansea

Mr. McBride: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve television reception in Hafod and other areas of the constituency of the hon. Member for Swansea, East.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Improvements in the quality of reception of television services in particular localities are primarily the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities concerned. Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are considering what can be done to improve the coverage of their television services in those parts of South Wales where reception is poor. Neither authority can yet say which areas any additional relay stations would serve.

Mr. McBride: That Answer is extremely disappointing. Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there are many areas with no definite picture, and I have received representations from people in St. Thomas, Hafod, Bonymaen and other parts of the constituency? Will he use his good offices and make representations in the proper quarter for the erection of a booster station on Kilvey Hill in view of the mountainous terrain round about?

Mr. Slater: My hon. Friend's observations will be taken note of by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., but I must inform him that the information passed to me by the B.B.C. is that reception of B.B.C. Wales on Channel 13 is satisfactory in most parts of Swansea, although reception is poor in a few districts. The programme is estimated by the B.B.C. to


be available to about 80 per cent. of the population of the Borough of Swansea. Reception in Swansea of B.B.C.-1 on Channel 5, the programme put out by West of England, is somewhat better than of B.B.C. Wales on Channel 13, except in a few pockets where reception is poor. The I.T.A. says that reception of its services is satisfactory in many parts of Swansea, although in a few districts reception is poor.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General remember that it is not only in South Wales where there is need for booster stations for B.B.C. and I.T.A. transmissions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot travel round the country visiting other places. The Question relates to the constituency of the hon. Member for Swansea, East.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend the need to see that these fringe areas with poor reception have their bad reception remedied before he accedes to the £6 licence fee which is generally understood to be agreeable and likely to be agreed upon in the not-too-distant future?

Mr. Slater: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to give serious consideration to any idea which may be ventilated for the improvement of services to the general public.

B.B.C. Viewers' Council

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to set up a viewers' council for the British Broadcasting Corporation, on the same lines as the General Advisory Council of the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Benn: The B.B.C. have had a General Advisory Council for very many years.

Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us are thoroughly fed up with some of the programmes that the B.B.C. is producing? Even if it has the General Advisory Council, that Council is not very effective. Surely what is wanted is a strong Council which the B.B.C. will listen to.

Mr. Benn: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the I.T.A.

General Advisory Council and, therefore, his experience of the work of these Councils is personal. I have put it to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. since I have been in office that possibly the General Advisory Councils, might be used as a court of appeal if people were not satisfied with the views of the Governors themselves, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that not only did the B.B.C. reject that idea; so did the I.T.A.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a straightforward fact that the repute of the B.B.C., once the envy of Europe, has now reached as low a level as ever known in our lifetime? Are not devices such as councils suggested because we have a service of which we are ashamed?

Mr. Benn: I am afraid that, on this as on many matters, there are differences of opinion. A very large body of opinion in this country and throughout the world envies the standards achieved and maintained by the B.B.C.

Mr. Freeson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people here and outside are far more concerned about the wholesale assault that seems to be being built up by the Tory Central Office and the leaders of the Conservative Party to influence the control and management of B.B.C. programmes on radio and television in the direction of Tory propaganda?

Mr. Benn: Whatever the truth of that comment may be, there obviously would be very great danger for everyone if political interference of any kind were to take over the control of broadcasting by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

B.B.C. (Directors-General)

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek power to ensure that he is informed by the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation of the persons they propose to appoint as Directors-General in future.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The Governors of the B.B.C. have been given the responsibility for appointing their own staff. This is the best arrangement.

Sir C. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering making any representations to the governors about the replacement of the present Director-General?

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The House has approved the arrangements under which the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are controlled by Governors who are thought to be and who are men of great responsibility. In those circumstances, for the Minister to come in and say who should and should not be appointed by those people to be their chief executives would be constitutionally unsatisfactory.

Sir C. Taylor: Could not the Minister be informed?

Mr. Benn: The same point would arise. If the responsibility for appointing their chief executives lies with the Governors, information about the appointment could come to me only after the appointment had taken place, and it is already made public.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of the constant sniping from hon. Members opposite, many of us believe that the present Director-General of the B.B.C. does a good job? Is he further aware that if anything many of us think that the Director-General of the B.B.C. errs on the side of over-caution? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, out of consideration for the excessive sensitivity of hon. Members opposite, last week the Director-General of the B.B.C. took off a play which was critical of hon. Members in the belief that it would have offended them and that the Director-General should be told that the B.B.C. is perfectly at liberty to criticise us and hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that it is for me to comment on the quality of the Director-General, but it would be wrong to assume from some of the Questions which have been tabled that the views which have been expressed about the Director-General are as widely held as might appear to be the case.

Foreign Stations (Interference)

Sir G. Wills: asked the Postmaster-General what are the reasons for the delay in implementing measures to combat the effect of interference by foreign stations on British Broadcasting Corporation television reception; and what steps he is taking internationally to deal with this problem.

Mr. Benn: The B.B.C. tells me that there is no general delay in implementing the measures it is taking to improve the reception of its television services in areas where interference from continental stations is specially severe. The assignment of the scarce frequencies available for television is already most carefully planned internationally to combine the greatest use with the least interference.

Sir G. Wills: Does the Postmaster-General realise that intense annoyance is caused to thousands of people in the West Country and many other places by this interference on B.B.C. programmes which, in spite of what has been said quite a number of people still wish to see and hear? They wonder why the interference is not caused on I.T.V.? Could not the Postmaster-General do something internationally to stop this interference which is of great annoyance, over a prolonged period, to a very large number of people?

Mr. Benn: The allocation of frequencies, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is internationally agreed to order to maximise the use and minimise the interference. This is, in part, a seasonal problem. At this time of the year interference is more serious. As far as remedies are concerned, the B.B.C. has completed 36 relays, and 30 more will be completed in 1965 and 1966. For the high power Band-III transmissions there will be five transmitters. Two of them are open and three more are to come. This is a problem which can only be tackled where it is acute by the provision of more relay stations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that international reallocation would not solve the problem.

Sir G. Wills: If the B.B.C. is in trouble, could not the Postmaster-General help it and get it to provide the relay stations more quickly?

Mr. Benn: When the B.B.C. gave me its latest plan for relay stations I invited it to prepare another one to deal with the areas badly affected, and a new stage of its relay scheme is in course of preparation.

Mr. Farr: When the right hon. Gentleman is looking into this matter, could he also look into reception of both B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2 in the London area, which is exceptionally bad compared with I.T.V. reception?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point he would like to bring to my attention in this respect I will see that the engineers look at it. It depends very much on areas, and certainly in the area where I live reception is affected by overhead jet aircraft. Good aerials can perhaps eliminate trouble, even in the centre of big cities.

B.B.C. 2 (Coverage)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for extending the coverage of B.B.C. 2 television to Scotland.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects B.B.C. 2 to be available in Scotland.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Planning the extension of the coverage of B.B.C. 2 is a matter, in the first place, for the B.B.C. The first of its main UHF stations to bring B.B.C. 2 to Scotland is expected to open at Black Hill next December. This station will serve central Scotland including Glasgow and part of Edinburgh. A second station is expected to open at Durris towards the end of next year or soon afterwards, to serve North East Scotland. Further stations are being planned to extend B.B.C. 2 to the rest of Scotland, but it is too early to say when the additional stations are likely to open.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, for a change, in the future when any new service is developed by the B.B.C., or by a public service organisation, the regions outside London will get first "go" and that London will come last? Does he recognise we are getting rather tired, in Scotland and the North-East and elsewhere, of London getting first choice and the regions lagging behind, although the regions are called upon every time to pay at the same time as London?

Mr. Slater: I can understand the feelings of my hon. Friend, and many other hon. Members in this respect and in respect of increased services. I have no doubt that the observations he has made will be brought to the notice of the B.B.C.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Postmaster-General when B.B.C.2 will be available to Yorkshire viewers.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Planning the extension of the coverage of B.B.C.2 is a matter, in the first place, for the Corporation. One of its main U.H.F. stations, which will bring B.B.C.2 to viewers in South Yorkshire, is expected to open at Emley Moor towards the end of October. Another to serve North Yorkshire is expected to open in the Autumn of 1967. Together these two stations will make B.B.C.2 available to a large part of Yorkshire. Further stations are being planned to serve the remaining areas of Yorkshire, but it is too early to say when these additional stations are likely to open.

Television Services (Cost)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Postmaster-General what is the cost per viewer of television services in each British Broadcasting Corporation region.

Mr. Benn: This is a matter for the B.B.C. I have asked it to send my hon. Friend the latest figures which it has available.

B.B.C. (Finance)

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General what further steps he proposes to take to enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to overcome its financial difficulties.

Mr. Benn: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 14th April in which I announced that, as part of its wider reviews of broadcasting policy, the Government would be giving further study to the problems of broadcasting finance. This study is proceeding but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Boston: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the reluctance of the last Government to face up to their responsibilities in failing to increase the licence fee at a time when the B.B.C. was expanding its services has led very substantially to these difficulties? Can he say whether in his review he is considering advertising as a source of revenue?

Mr. Benn: I have already dealt with a similar Question about this, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech which I made on the 13th May. It is true that the B.B.C. was losing money at the rate


of about £40,000 a day when this Government took over, just as the postal services were losing money at the rate of over £50,000 a day when we took over. This certainly has accentuated the difficulties.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston)? Many of us take the view that the B.B.C. is quite right to reject advertising, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to support the Corporation in that.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I was not advocating the use of advertising? I was asking him a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Railex Service

Mr. Farr: asked the Postmaster-General what were the reasons which led him to increase the fee of the Railex service from 6s. to 20s. a packet.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The fee was put up because of the very heavy loss we were incurring on Railex packets; even with the new charge, the service will not be paying its way.

Mr. Farr: What is the purpose of the Minister's right hon. Friends asking for price restraint when commercial, financial and legal concerns have to face this sort of increase? Is it his right hon. Friend's intention to price the service out of existence?

Mr. Slater: It is not the intention of the Post Office to price this service out of existence. Perhaps I should inform the House of what the position really is. Before the tariff increase, about 22,000 Railex packets were posted annually. Without the tariff increase the loss on the service in 1965–66 was expected to be about £23,000. With the increase, the loss is still estimated at about £4,000. It is not, therefore, the object to try to price it out of existence.

Mr. Rankin: As the increase to 20s. has not eliminated losses but has eliminated many users of the service, such as myself, will my hon. Friend say what charge

would have to be imposed so that the service "washed its own face"?

Mr. Slater: It is not so much that one is seeking to give the service, as it were, to one individual, but this is a service afforded to all the general public. I must ask the House to realise how the service actually operates on behalf of the general public. There has to be a messenger who goes to the railway station, and the packet is put on the first available train to the station of destination. The office of delivery is notified by service telegram, and that office in turn sends a messenger to meet the train and deliver the packet. If a packet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope that hon. Members will take this seriously. It is no use their directing criticism against the Post Office and its operations if they are not prepared to accept the facts when they are presented to them. If a packet has to be transferred between stations at an intermediate town, this also is done by a messenger and the post office concerned is notified by telegram.

Stamps (Supplies)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General how many post offices were affected by the shortage of penny stamps on 17th May and succeeding days; what was the cause of the shortage; and when it was rectified.

Mr. Benn: This information is not available centrally. Most offices had plenty of stamps, and those which ran short were supplied within a few hours of ordering them. As the House knows, the shortage was due to unofficial action by staff in our supplies depots, from which stamps are issued to head offices. Emergency measures were set in hand at once, and almost all post offices were thus able to stock up again fully within two or three days. I want to make it absolutely clear that at no time was there any shortage in the stocks of stamps held by the Post Office supplies depots. Sufficient stamps had been ordered and printed to meet the requirements of the new tariff scales.

Mr. Cooke: Does not the Postmaster-General realise that this sort of smokescreen is not much good and the general public were seriously inconvenienced over a long period? In his reply to me last


week he admitted that he did not know how many stamps were printed. Is it not plain that he never took any steps to see that the shortage could not happen?

Mr. Benn: Nobody regrets the shortage of stamps more than I do, but the simple fact is that there never was a shortage of stamps held by the Post Office. Unofficial action in the supplies department prevented the stamps from being distributed in the normal way, and there was no shortage of stamps in the Post Office itself. I have explained this to the House, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman has said in the House that the unofficial action by members of the Post Office staff was of only very short duration. Will he not recognise that it is no good having stamps in the Post Office if the stamps are not made available where the public can get hold of them? Does not he look upon this as one of his most glaring administrative failures since he took office?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have looked at the facts, which were that unofficial action began at the end of April and continued until quite recently. I was concerned solely in my reply with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol. West (Mr. Robert Cooke), namely, that the Post Office had not ordered enough stamps to be printed.
The fact is that enough stamps were ordered and printed. They were held in the supply depot and as a result of the unofficial action it was impossible to get them to the head offices without emergency action. These are the facts. No one regrets the inconvenience to the public more than I do.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said—[Interruption.]—but will he not also accept—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. So much noise as this prevents progress at Question Time.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, in face of the problems with which he and his Department were faced, this was an

occasion for some remarkable steps in order to break the deadlock and therefore serve the public? Why was not that done?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member apparently did not listen to my Reply, which was that emergency action was taken, that most offices were not short of stamps and that those that were short were supplied within a few hours. That was my original Answer and represents the facts of the situation.

Increased Charges (Publicity)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Postmaster-General in how many newspapers he advertised the increase in postal charges on 17th May; what was the total number and cost of such advertisements; and whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the amount of space taken in each newspaper and the cost thereof.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Postmaster-General what was the cost of publicity advertising the increases in postal charges.

Mr. Costain: asked the Postmaster-General what will be the total cost of advertising the increased postal charges.

Mr. Benn: The total cost was £109,500, including £4,500 for posters and leaflets. The new charges were advertised in 130 publications, the total number of advertisements being 361. The detailed information asked for is too lengthy for the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am therefore placing it in the Library, and sending a copy to the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Mr. Hill: Is not this a somewhat curious example of the right hon. Gentleman's alleged constant efforts to keep down expenditure? Was it really necessary to take twice the space required to set out the new charges in order to reiterate some well-accepted platitudes? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public fully appreciates that men and women are required to collect, handle and deliver the mails but does not wish to pay indirectly through Post Office deficits to be given that information?

Mr. Benn: The first advertisement only contained the outlined reasons which


I think the public was entitled to know, and in this we reflected the decision reached by the House when the tariffs were adopted in March.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Are these advertisements placed in all the national newspapers, or is there any differentiation because of ownership or political persuasion? Was the Daily Worker included? If not, why not?

Mr. Benn: I have been into this question. The Daily Worker and the New Daily were not included. This was not a policy decision but was taken on the advice of the agents who represent the best way of covering the nation.

Mr. Lewis: Surely Communists use stamps.

Postal Departments (Transfers)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Postmaster-General what transfers of postal departments are contemplated; and if he will site some in the new town of Peterlee in the county of Durham.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I assume my right hon. Friend is referring to any department of the Post Office. We are in process of making or planning several moves for which locations have already been settled. I am afraid my right hon. Friend cannot commit himself to particular locations for any other moves that may take place.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not the Postmaster-General already committed himself in various directions? What is the use of giving me that Answer? Does not my hon. Friend know that the new town is quite near the sea, is in lovely countryside, has wonderful people and is in the process of industrial development? Is he further aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has promised to step up the amenities? What more does my hon. Friend want?

Mr. Slater: I can appreciate the feelings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about Peterlee and I have great sympathy with him. But, in addition to the moves which have already taken place the following four are in progress or are planned and the location settled: the Savings Bank goes to Glasgow, the Research Branch to

Martlesham, the London depots of the Supplies Department to Crayford, and the Savings Certificate Division to Durham.

Mr. Shinwell: Peterlee is in the County of Durham. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a Durham County seat. Why does not he look after our interests?

Mr. Slater: My right hon. Friend has not taken note of the reply. I said that the Savings Certificate Division is going to Durham.

Manufactures

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now increase the range of products manufactured by the Post Office; and if he will set up new manufacturing divisions for this purpose.

Mr. Benn: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 12th May.

Mr. Sheldon: So large an organisation as the Post Office, if in private hands, would naturally produce a much larger proportion of its own supplies. Will my right hon. Friend look into this again and see whether the Post Office can emulate some of the best examples of private enterprise?

Mr. Benn: As I said, I will study the possibilities and shall not hesitate to extend the range of manufacturing activities if I am satisfied that it is sensible to do so.

Overprinted Envelopes (Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield)

Lord Balniel: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that envelopes which have been delivered to households in Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield are overprinted with offensive words suggesting that the recipients are bad debtors; and if he will take steps to ensure that such envelopes are not delivered.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I know of the circumstances to which my noble Lord refers. But my right hon. Friend does not think the words in question are, on the face of them, grossly offensive within the meaning of Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1953, and he cannot, therefore,


agree to do as the noble Lord asks. Whether the words may be grossly offensive when considered in relation to a particular addressee, the Post Office is not in a position to decide: but it is, of course, always open to an aggrieved party to start proceedings under the Post Office Act if he wishes.

Lord Balniel: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that these words are grossly offensive? Is he aware that envelopes have been delivered in Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City with printed on them in large red letters:
Bad debt collecting service. We only call on those who do not pay.
I know that at least three of my constituents are most certainly not debtors and I am advised that they have a claim for damages for libel. As it is very probable that by delivering these letters the Post Office has made itself a party to the libel, will the hon. Gentleman go into this matter again and more sympathetically?

Mr. Slater: In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says about being advised that these words are libellous, and—

Lord Balniel: By lawyers.

Mr. Slater: —it is not for me to say whether they are, although I realise that in certain circumstances the words could give serious offence, I am advised that, without knowledge of the circumstances relating to each recipient, it could not be said that on the face of them they were necessarily grossly offensive within the meaning of the Post Office Act.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Even though these words may not be libellous, they are certainly offensive. Ought not the hon. Gentleman to take them seriously and look at the matter again?

Mr. Slater: I am just as serious about this matter as anybody else and I agree that on the face of it it looks as though the words are grossly offensive, but I am advised by the legal department that they cannot be said to be offensive within the meaning of the Post Office Act.

Stamp-Selling Machines

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Postmaster-General (1) from what proportion of automatic stamp vending machines,

other than those selling books of stamps, it is now possible to buy fourpenny stamps;
(2) what plans he has to convert existing stamp vending machines, other than those selling books of stamps, to the sale of fourpenny stamps; and what the capital cost of these measures will be.

Mr. Joseph Slater: There are no stamp-selling machines dispensing fourpenny postage stamps. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the range of stamps sold through machines and the capital cost of any proposed changes will not be known until the review is completed.

Mr. Lloyd: Does not the Postmaster-General agree that it is rather ludicrous for a Government who claim to be the harbinger of the computer age to have to confess that they cannot keep their stamp-vending machines up to date? Does he not appreciate that they are often the first impression of public enterprise which visitors to this country have at airports and seaports? As the right hon. Gentleman does not have much time left before the 4d. stamp goes up to 5d., will he not take some steps to deal with the matter now?

Mr. Slater: The hon. Gentleman was very optimistic in the latter part of his supplementary question. I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to deal with this matter, but we have nearly 28,000 stamp selling machines of various kinds and the hon. Gentleman will agree that any wholesale alterations must be carefully considered. In the meantime, the existing installations meet the requirements of the new postage rates.

Sir F. Bennett: In view of the Labour Government's programme, would it not be much more economic to leave the machines as they are until the cost of the stamp has gone up to 6d., in which case one would only need to buy two 3d. stamps?

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all over the West Country we have had stamp selling machines selling no stamps at all because the stamps have been taken out of the machines by the Post Office and stuck on nails along counters because no other stamps have been available for sale?

Mr. Slater: The hon. Gentleman is a poor advocate of the Post Office service


in this country when he makes statements of that kind which can be published.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that what my hon. Friend is trying to do is to point out to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend something which they have been utterly unwilling to face—that this has been the biggest monumental bog-up over stamps?

Mr. David Griffiths: At least my hon. Friend has the moral courage to tell the general public, which is what hon. Members opposite never attempted to do.

Premium Bonds

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General whether regular checks are made to ensure that each premium bond prizewinners' draw includes all eligible bond numbers; and what complaints he has received on this matter.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I can assure my hon. Friend that a number of elaborate checks are regularly made. Occasionally bond-holders question whether their bonds have been included in the draws; but during the many years for which the system has been working no case has come to light in which an eligible bond has failed to get its due chance of a prize.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this Question arose directly out of an article in the Daily Mirror a few weeks ago, and will he take this opportunity of affirming that there were inaccuracies in that report and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that every premium bond holder's number goes into the draw when eligible?

Mr. Slater: I am pleased my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to follow up the question of the Daily Mirror article. I have no doubt that many hon. Gentlemen read this article. It was founded on two separate and isolated cases. One case reported in the Daily Mirror of March, 1964, alleged a bundle of completed application forms for the purchase of premium bonds had been retained at a bank for six months. This story could not be corroborated and the London Clearing Banks Committee could throw no light on the matter. In the second case a bond holder wrote to the Financial Times alleging that in 1961

two application forms relating to his bonds were kept in a drawer for eight months after being so mutilated that the bond owner could not be traced. The actual facts were quite different. In September, 1961, the account at Worksop Post Office indicated the sale of the two bonds, in total £6, but our checks showed that the application forms had not been received in the Bond Office.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my number seems to be constantly ignored? Will he be good enough to look into the matter?

Parcels

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Postmaster-General what factors govern the permitted size of parcels sent by parcel post within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The size of the fittings and the machines used for sorting and handling the parcels, and the bags in which they are moved about the country.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In view of the difficulties of the shirt industry which the hon. Gentleman knows, can his Department make any suggestions to try to solve this problem?

Mr. Slater: Even if we could avoid expensive changes in machinery, fewer such parcels would go into the bag and handling costs would go up. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had conversations with the people in Northern Ireland on this matter, and I hope soon to be able to give a more favourable reply.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to speed up the delivery of parcels between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. Slater: We are doing everything we possibly can even in regard to the parcels service.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that one of the difficulties in Northern Ireland, and especially in Belfast, is that there appears to be a little "Gestapo" at the post office in Belfast which is still censoring the parcels of a certain minority? Will he look into the fact that a room at the


post office in Belfast is being used for this "Gestapo" purpose?

Mr. Slater: I do not think that that is a matter for us. I made a visit to Belfast during the Whitsun Recess and no operations of this type were brought to my notice.

Special Stamp (General Strike)

Mr. Boston: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a special stamp issue to commemorate the 40th anniversary next year of the General Strike.

Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. As a participant in the General Strike I can well appreciate the significance of this historical event. It is something I shall never forget. However, it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to issue a special commemorative stamp on this occasion.

Mr. Boston: Does not my hon. Friend feel that the commemoration of an event of this kind could make a very valuable contribution both to revenue and productivity? Will he have another look at this matter, and, in deciding whether political events can be commemorated, does not he feel that the commemoration of Parliament itself might have been a political event?

Mr. Slater: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the object of the Question and the reason for this commemoration. But it is a moot point whether the 40th anniversary of the General Strike comes within the scope of the policy announced on 15th December last.

Sir P. Agnew: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that special issues of stamps are best and most appropriately confined to those occasions on which the nation was in unity and not deeply divided?

Mr. Slater: I do not think that it was united on Magna Carta. I think that all my hon. Friends would give added support to the sentiments expressed in the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman over the fact that

his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) has brought up this very touchy question of special stamps, but would he admit that a commemorative stamp for the 700th anniversary of the Simon de Montfort Parliament and for the death of Sir Winston Churchill are long overdue? Is he aware that, although a Sir Winston Churchill stamp has not yet been produced in this country, one has already been produced in the United States? And is he not ashamed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Difficult though it may be, we must confine this commemoration to the General Strike.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Telephone Equipment

Mr. Walters: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied with the development progress of British telephone equipment, and its availability to the public; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: British telephone equipment is constantly being improved and developed to take account of technological advance. It is being made available to the public as rapidly as possible as part of the big expansion of the British telephone system now under way. To meet rising demand and use, a new capital investment programme is now in course of preparation.

Mr. Walters: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress of the development of new types of equipment, such as those which have been available in the United States for some time, for instance, rapid dial systems and call directors, which are useful not only for efficiency at home but for exports? Moreover, will he give some indication of when deliveries of loud speaker telephones, which are currently running a long time behind schedule, will be resumed and returned to normality?

Mr. Benn: I will inquire about loud speaker telephones and write to the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot tell him offhand what the supply position is. As he may know, I especially arranged for an exhibition of subscriber apparatus in the House of Commons at Easter so that


hon. Members would have the opportunity to see what was available, and it included not only trimphone, which has come into service, but also repertory diallers of the most modern kind and various other things, including press-button telephones, which are in the process of advanced development.

Sir J. Rodgers: While recognising the importance of pressing on with new apparatus, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to remove the backlog of orders for ordinary telephones, a backlog now running into thousands?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, an accelerated capital investment programme was announced at the time of the 1963 White Paper, but was entirely outstripped by demand. The position when I came into office was that the forecast was that the waiting list was likely to increase rather than diminish as had been hoped. This is the problem—that the Post Office is installing more telephones than ever before, while at the same time demand is outstripping supply, even with an expanded programme. That is why a new capital investment programme is in course of preparation.

Mr. A. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been waiting for about six months for an ordinary 15 ft. lead to go on a loudspeaker telephone and that my example is typical of the many long waits of subscribers for new equipment? When will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for equipment to be delivered promptly and swiftly when ordered by subscribers?

Mr. Benn: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's having brought his own case to my attention, but I will look into it to see what can be done.

Improvements

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.

Mr. GRIMOND: To ask the Postmaster-General, what new proposals he has for improving the telephone system.

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker?

I hold in my hand a letter saying that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to answer my Question No. 66 with Question No. 21, which is in very similar terms but which the right hon. Gentleman is not here to ask.

Mr. Speaker: The only guidance which I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that in these circumstances no question for me arises.

Subscribers (Benefits)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Postmaster-General if he will list the benefits to which a subscriber is entitled in exchange for his telephone charges.

Mr. Benn: The opportunity to call and be called by practically all those people throughout the world who also have access to a telephone; subject to the usual limitations imposed by acts of God, human errors and technical breakdowns.

Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as between Dorset and London the benefit commonly provided in the morning is a synthetic voice which says, "All lines are engaged"? Would the Postmaster-General consider, if this cannot be improved, that subscribers should have some rebate on the rental they pay?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, trunk traffic is rising at the rate of about 17 per cent. a year. He will be glad to know that in the next five years more trunk circuits will be provided than in the last 50 years, and this should help to deal with the problem he has in mind.

Mr. King: I was not asking the Postmaster-General about his difficulties in providing the service. He has not answered my Question whether, if the service cannot be provided, which is what I understand him to say, then subscribers ought not to be asked to pay for it.

Mr. Benn: Subscribers who cannot get through because the number which they wish to call is engaged, or the line they need is engaged, are not required to pay and there will be nothing on which to give them a rebate.

Mr. Fisher: In order to enjoy these benefits, and as a first step towards improving this service, would the right


hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that it needs more improvement? It is one of the most frustrating features of modern life trying to get telephone numbers, and if his Department cannot improve the service, would he consider handing it over to private enterprise which, as in the United States, might be more successful?

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been frank about the deficiencies of the service, which vary very much in different parts of the country. In the South-East and London, where there is congestion in schools and trains, there is also a very serious congestion in the telephone system. This is something that cannot be put right overnight, because one has to get the equipment and install it. I cannot believe that the limitations, which are now limitations of manpower, equipment and sites, would in any way be altered by a change of ownership in the service, and this view was evidently shared by the Conservative Party, which took no move in this direction in 13 years.

London Railway Termini

Mr. Grant: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the public telephone service at London railway termini.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Some public telephones have had to be withdrawn from some London railway termini because of rebuilding work: they will be replaced as soon as conditions permit. I regret that many of the call offices in these locations are misused or given rough treatment by some members of the public. We inspect them regularly and attend to faults promptly and my right hon. Friend is considering how best to make the inspections more effective. But it would be in everybody's interest and improve the service markedly if all who use these facilities were to leave them in a state suitable for others who follow.

Mr. Grant: Will the Postmaster-General consider this as a matter of urgency? Is he aware that the existing telephones are frequently very dirty, that a large proportion appear to be out of order and that over a test of ten occasions when I endeavoured to get the operator, it took me between one and five minutes

to do so? Quite apart from the inconvenience which is caused to the British travelling public, does not this create an appalling impression to visitors from overseas?

Mr. Slater: We are doing everything we possibly can to speed up building and other work, but I must point out that the fault liability of call offices is greater than that of ordinary telephones because the equipment is more complicated and they are often abused by the public. Everything possible is being done to reduce the number of faults and prompt attention is always given to the faults that occur.

Mr. Lewis: May we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that these problems have not just occurred during the last eight months but have been going on for 13 years or more?

Mr. Slater: That, I am afraid, is the position. This is another part of the inheritance that was passed to us.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Minister think of providing machines for giving change in these stations, because it is sometimes difficult to have enough change to use in a telephone box?

Mr. Slater: I hope that the hon. Member has not overlooked the new facility that we have introduced in regard to the credit card.

SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION (AIR ATTACKS)

Mr. J. Amery: Mr. J. Amery (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the bombing of territory within the South Arabian Federation by foreign aircraft.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I am informed that a village and a guard post in the State of Beihan in South Arabia were attacked with rockets and machine guns yesterday morning by two MiG fighters which subsequently flew off into the Yemen. I regret to say that, on the information at present available, it appears that one woman was killed and four other persons, including two members of the local Federal Guard, were wounded during these attacks.
Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has been instructed to make a strong protest to the Government of the United Arab Republic about these attacks and to call for payment of compensation to those affected. The Government of the United Arab Republic are also being warned that in the event of a recurrence of such incidents we would reserve the right to take such measures as we considered to be appropriate.
We are asking the United States Government to convey on our behalf a similar protest and warning to the Republican authorities in the Yemen and are also reporting the circumstances to the President of the Security Council.

Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side would like to associate ourselves with the representations which he has made in Cairo and, through the Americans, in the Yemen? Is he aware that this is not by any means the first time that incursion and aggression of this kind has taken place? Do I understand the Secretary of State to have made it plain that if adequate compensation and apology are not forthcoming he will take effective action to make it plain to the United Arab Republic that aggression of this kind does not pay?

Mr. Greenwood: We had better wait and see what reply we get to the protest which we have delivered and then decide what action would be appropriate in the light of the circumstances.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make it plain that while there is, I am sure, a genuine desire on the part of the Egyptians and the United Arab Republic to improve relations with this country, actions like this and certain broadcasts are so inconsistent with that desire as to make the task of all those who wish to improve relations between the countries much more difficult?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes. I know that the hon. Member will be happy to know that the Prime Minister made this perfectly clear to the Parliamentary delegation from the United Arab Republic when he met them earlier this week.

RANN OF KUTCH (CEASE-FIRE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I am happy to inform the House that the Indian and Pakistan Governments have announced the signature of an agreement for a cease-fire and the restoration of the status quo in the Rann of Kutch as at 1st January, 1965, and on the arrangements for the determination and demarcation of the border in that area.
In implementation of the agreement arrangements have been made, pending the final determination and demarcation of the border, for police patrolling by both sides in the Rann of Kutch area. These arrangements will help to avoid any risk of further clashes occurring in the area after troops on both sides have withdrawn.
I am glad to say that both President Ayub and Mr. Shastri made it clear to me that, when the agreement was completed, they would at once instruct their troops to withdraw from their present advanced positions along the Indo-Pakistan border in the confidence that this would also contribute to the reduction of the present tension between the two countries.
The whole House, will, I am sure, wish to welcome this settlement and I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the wisdom and statesmanship of President Ayub and Mr. Shastri.
I hope that this may prove to be the first step towards a general improvement in relations between India and Pakistan, in whose welfare and peaceful progress all of us in Britain have so close and abiding an interest.

Mr. Sandys: May I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming the settlement of this unfortunate dispute between two countries, both of which are our friends? While the main credit must, of course, go to the leaders of India and Pakistan, may I ask the Prime Minister to convey to our High Commissioners in Delhi and Rawalpindi our appreciation of the valuable part which they played in helping to bring about negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the whole


House will realise the tremendous difficulties that the two Commonwealth statesmen concerned faced and, therefore, how statesmanlike was their decision in coming to this agreement. As I said on a previous occasion, however, on an interim step towards this I think that every praise is due to both the High Commissioners concerned who obtained agreement on the main elements; and it was not until last week that we were able to get nearer completion of it.
I think, also, that every tribute is due to the Ministers and officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office who have done so much to help the statesmen concerned to realise their desire for peace.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the settlement is another testimony to the great value that derives from the Commonwealth of Nations as an organisation bringing together 21 independent countries on the basis of friendship and co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I think, above all, that it is a tribute to the desire of the two statesmen concerned, whatever difficulties they had to face in their own countries, to secure an affective peace and a reduction of tension between their two countries. This is what needs to be said first. Although, naturally, this item was not on the agenda of the Commonwealth Conference, I am certain that every Commonwealth Prime Minister who was present last week earnestly hoped for this settlement.

Mr. Lubbock: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the tribute which the Prime Minister has paid to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in their statesmanlike approach to this question? May I, at the same time, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the United Nations is to be asked

to assist with the arrangements for determining the border and the cease-fire?

The Prime Minister: Agreement has to be reached, and, I think, will now be reached, on the assistance that will be needed to do the actual demarcation. As the hon. Member will know, the United Nations is involved in supervising the cease-fire arrangements in the Kashmir area. What is pleasing about this particular decision is the agreement of the two heads of Government concerned to withdraw their troops right along the frontier between India and Pakistan, where there has been a danger of increased tension in recent weeks.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reports coming through today from India and Pakistan pay tribute to the part which he and the Government have played in this matter? Will he take this as an encouragement to persevere in his efforts, along with other Commonwealth countries, to use his good offices to solve the apparently intractable difficulties in South-East Asia?

BILLS PRESENTED

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS

Bill to make further provision with respect to loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Niall MacDermot; supported by Mr. Ross and Mr. Richard Crossman; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE

Bill to provide for insurance by employers in respect of injuries to certain employees, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Wylie; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

FEUDAL AND LEASEHOLD TITLES

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain restrictions in feudal and leasehold titles in Scotland.
On 22nd June, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) was given leave to bring in a Bill to abolish feu duties in Scotland. I agree with the purpose of my hon. Friend's Bill—indeed, I, too, was a sponsor of it—but it may take some time to work through the processes of the House, and I believe that something which can be done much more quickly and much more easily is necessary to abolish certain abuses of the feudal system in Scotland. These abuses concern the exploitation of the old restrictive clauses in feu charters which are being used, not to protect the amenities of an area, or the rights of any citizens, but simply to make money.
In brief, the Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce removes the power of the superior of a piece of feud ground to impose any restrictions on the development of it, or building thereon, if permission has already been given by the local planning authority for such a change of use or construction.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen explained something of the basis of feus in Scotland, and I am grateful to him for doing so, because it means that it is not necessary for me to go into a long explanation of the matter. Suffice it to say that the feudal system in Scotland has left most of the land in the hands of a few old families. The tittle to the land is extremely doubtful and has been described by a former Secretary of State for Scotland in words which are not quite Parliamentary.
These old titles are being bought out by private developers, insurance companies, and other commercial interests, and substantial areas in the centre of Glasgow are now owned by a large insurance company which is not really concerned about the amenities of the citizens in this part of the world. It is concerned only with the speculative value of the restrictions that are held under the old

charter. The fact that this company is holding up progress, preventing the expansion of many worth-while enterprises, and putting additional unnecessary financial burdens on local authorities who want to redevelop, means little or nothing to it.
A few words in explanation of these restrictions may be of some help to the House. When these restrictions were originally imposed, they were frequently imposed for reasonable purposes, perhaps to protect the superior who was concerned in producing something himself because he was the manufacturer of, say, a dye, or the owner of a distillery, or it might have been that he was genuinely trying to give some protection to the amenities in the area.
I know of one feu in which it is illegal to keep a dung heap on the premises unless that dung has been produced by animals stabled on the premises. But it is not this kind of feu which the speculative companies are after. They are concerned with buying out feus which have restrictions on development or restrictions on any building that is to be erected on the site.
The lack of concern for amenities is evidenced by the fact that in many cases people are trying to get money as an inducement to remove restrictions. I have the example of a company which wished to develop a site in the centre of Glasgow for offices purposes. The old feu charter restricted the development to three storeys only. No one nowadays would think of buying property in the centre of a city, with the tremendous expense that that involves, if he could build only three storeys high.
This may have been reasonable 200 years ago, but, with modern building techniques, modern electric lifts, and modern materials, it is unnecessary, and the company in question wished to build to five or six storeys. The feu superior used his rights to restrict the building, but he quietly let it be known that for a consideration of 50 years' purchase he would be willing to waive his right to restrict the height of the building.
In another case, a small restaurateur wished to obtain a licence to sell alcohol, but he discovered that the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises was restricted by an ancient feu. He found,


however, that the feu superior was willing to allow alcoholic beverages to be sold provided that he was paid £1,500.
Sometimes, however, the developer is not given the chance of paying to have a restriction removed. It sometimes appears to the developer that that would be a good arrangement to make, but the feu superior holds out against any development and will not waive his rights under the charter. Feu superiors have been known to hold out sufficiently long to enable them to buy up the land and develop it for their own benefit under the terms set out by the original entrepreneurs.
Anyone who wishes to develop in Scotland has to go through a long process before he can do so. He must first obtain planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the representative of the elected body of people in the community. It has its own experts, all of whom are directly or indirectly responsible to the citizens in the area. After planning permission has been received, the developer in the burghs must go through a fairly elaborate process. He must supply exact and detailed drawings of his proposed development to the Dean of Guild Court. He must also supply, in the prescribed form, a statement from proprietors in the adjoining areas that they agree to the development taking place. It is only after these processes have been complied with that he can go ahead with his plans.
I believe that by the time he has done all that the developer has run a fairly severe course in trying to satisfy the elected representatives of the community that he is undertaking proper and reasonable development. Because of this, I believe that there should be no interference by some ancient feu in the recognised will of the people which would be for the benefit of the community as a whole. For those reasons, I hope that the House will give me leave to bring in the Bill, and will facilitate its passage.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) has made a sincere and well-thought-out speech. On the face of it it looks as though he has a good case, but I hope that I shall be able to persuade him that his proposed

Bill is misconceived and inappropriate at the present time.
At the start of what I have to say I would point out that steps are now in progress for the complete reformation of feudal conveyancing in Scotland, a Commission having been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Reid. He has reported that there should be a system of registration of land in Scotland on the English model, and a remit has been made to Professor Halliday, of Glasgow University, to work out the details. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that this is not the time to bring in far-reaching proposals for the reformation of feudal conveyancing and law in Scotland.
It may be of some interest if I give a brief description of feudal land tenure in Scotland. I do so not as a representative of the landed proprietors of Scotland, but as a country solicitor who has dealt with hundreds of cases of small feus being taken off by builders, to the great advantage of the builders themselves—individuals in many cases and not necessarily large building firms.
Part of the trouble arises from the unfortunate terminology which exists. We talk about feudal conveyancing, the feudal system, superiors, and vassals. Some of us in Scotland have rather a liking for these old terms. There is an historical foundation for them. We have to go back 1,000 years to the institution of the feudal system, when the King divided the land in Scotland for administrative purposes, among his great nobles, who subfeud it to their lesser vassals. Gradually, over the years, the land has been feud into little pieces, to the great advantage of everybody. What started as a feudal system has become, by the British genius for compromise, an extremely workable system, to the great convenience of the people of Scotland—not so much the landowners, but the common people.
In the course of time it became the custom for a man who wanted to build a house to go to the local landowner and ask for a site. During the last 200 or 300 years Scottish landlords have generally been very far-seeing men, and have mostly developed their estates according to a plan. The result is to be seen in cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow—in the great planned squares


and terraces which make these cities so beautiful. This has been done by the landowners being able to operate a systematic plan when they granted feus.
Two great advantages flowed from this. One was that the landowner acted as the planning authority when there was no planning authority in existence, and the other was that the developer—the builder—got the advantage of developing the site without having to bear the capital cost. That was a very important thing, because during the past century many humble people have built houses, often stretching their resources to do it. They might not have been able to do it if they had had to bear their share of capital charges arising from the development of roads, drains, and that sort of thing, which are necessary in the construction of a housing estate.
What happened was that the estate normally built the roads and put in the drains, if not the sewers, acting in exactly the same way as local planning authorities now act. In addition, it did a lot of other useful things, such as arranging for the building of walls and fences, for the convenience of the feuers themselves. All that could be done very much better if it was planned centrally. Normally, the expenses were pooled. The capital cost was derived from an annual feu duty, part of which was apportioned on each building site.
That system has worked very well in the past, and most Scottish houses are burdened only with a very small feu duty, representing part of the capital cost and the annual expenditure incurred a long time ago. As time has passed this system has become even more important. The hon. Member may not find this easy to understand, because he referred to local planning authorities and to the Dean of Guild Court. To a large extent these have taken the place of the old landowners, but there are still many instances where this old system remains of value in connection with the developing of estates. Most bungalows and privately-owned houses are built on estates which are held in common.
The first and most important requirement in the development of an estate is for the building of roads. A local authority does not normally build the roads in the case of private development. It requires the developers to build the

roads, and when they have been built to its satisfaction it takes them over and maintains them thereafter. But the roads have to be built, and there has to be a system for paying for this service. It has been of great advantage, in the case of the building of bungalows and modest semi-detached houses, to make an annual charge, because a feu duty representing a capital cost of perhaps £200 or £300 might be very difficult to find from the resources of the people concerned, who may be very hard up at that time of their lives and who probably had to obtain a loan in order to help them.
That is the necessity for these restrictions. I now turn to the question of the people who are enforcing these restrictions. One it apt to think of the landowners—the feudal superiors—in this connection, but feus of this sort have become less and less attractive to private landowners, principally because of the cost of collection. My professional experience, derived not from my dealings with landowners but from my dealings with individual feuers, is that the landowners are only too anxious to get rid of the old feu duties.
I know of several instances where my clients have feus on estates and where the feudal superior has approached them and asked them to be good enough to redeem their feu duties. This has been done on reasonable terms. The owners of one estate that I know of have written to hundreds of my clients asking them to redeem their feu duties at the rate of 16 years' purchase, which is very reasonable. I think that the hon. Member will agree with that.
In certain other cases the landowners have gone to some sort of financial institution and sold their feu duties, because an annual income of this sort is a very attractive investment for life insurance companies looking for a long-term investment—

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Bill which my hon. Friend is asking leave to introduce is concerned with certain restrictions. So far we have had an analysis of the purpose of the feu, and mention of Robert the Bruce, together with a description of existing forms of feu duties, but we have not had one word about restrictions. I


submit that the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing which is out of order. I gather that the argument is that such is the value of the system as it exists—together with the fact that it is under examination at present—that there is no need to introduce the Bill now. That is the relevance of the hon. Member's speech.

Mr. Hendry: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
I have mentioned the types of person who hold these feu duties, and who are enforcing the restrictions. In many cases they are large institutions. The Church of Scotland is the largest holder of feu duties in Scotland, and it has a consistently good record in dealing reasonably with its feuers. It may be that certain other institutions have dealt unreasonably with feuers, but I ask the hon. Member to consider whether, if buildings were being put up 100 years ago, with an annual feu duty of £5 for the site of one house, it is reasonable that the same piece of land should still be burdened with an annual feu duty of £5 if the buildings which are erected on it are worth perhaps millions of pounds. That is a matter of opinion.
Generally speaking, the builders themselves—private individuals—relish the

system of feu duties, and it is to the great advantage of everybody, especially in large owner-occupied estates which are now under construction. I ask the hon. Member, in view of my explanation and in view of the fact that the law is at present being very carefully reconsidered, to consider carefully whether this is a suitable time to ask leave to introduce a Bill of this sort. I do not propose to ask the House to divide against granting leave to bring in the Bill, because the hon. Gentleman could introduce his Bill in any case, but I ask him to give consideration to the points which I have raised.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, Mr. Hugh D. Brown, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Bence, and Mr. Emrys Hughes.

FEUDAL AND LEASEHOLD TITLES

Bill to abolish certain restrictions in feudal and leasehold titles in Scotland, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Orders of the Day — RENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1.—(REGULATED TENANCIES.)

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 19, after "section", to insert "or otherwise".
I know that the Minister and every hon. Member, on both sides, is anxious to make as speedy progress as possible with the Report stage of the Bill. It is for that reason that I think the Minister will be grateful to hear that I intend to be brief in moving this Amendment, not because I do not believe that it is important—I consider that it is extremely important—but because I accept that it was debated in another form during the Committee stage and that similar arguments were raised on new Clause No. 3 during yesterday's debate. Therefore, I do not want to go through those arguments again.
The object of the Amendment is to bring forthwith within one form of regulated tenancy all that property which is to be under control under the Bill. We on this side of the House believe that if the Minister proposes to bring in a system of fair rents and regulated tenancies, he should do so throughout the whole of the property which is to remain controlled, and that we should not be faced with a situation in which part of the controlled property is to be under a regulated tenancy at a fair rent and the remainder to remain under rigid rent control under the 1957 Act.
Very briefly, the arguments against this are, first, that it would mean that in a very short time one would find, since creeping recontrol is to continue, similar properties being let at entirely different rents. That was a justifiable criticism of creeping decontrol under the 1957 Act. Our complaint is that, in the Bill, it has been repeated in another guise. The second argument is that the very fact that rent is based on the creeping recontrol means that someone will be less anxious to move, with all the disadvant-
ages of mobility of labour which rigid rent control has always caused.
Thirdly, I believe that the limited rent as at present laid down under the 1957 Act is not a fair rent, in that it is already out of date and is likely to become gradually more out of date. The Minister has said that his intention is to be fair to the landlord and tenant and I believe that, by accepting the Amendment, that fairness will be achieved.
In yesterday's debate, when replying to the debate on new Clause No. 3 and in reference to a remark of mine about his proposals leading to a three-class State, the Minister said:
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, that that would simply create three classes of tenants—statutory tenants frozen here, mid-statutory tenants and regulated tenants. All that will have been achieved is the creation of a three-class State. I think that the two-class State is intolerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June 1965; Vol. 715, c. 439.]
These are sympathies which, I believe, are echoed on this side of the House. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister the opportunity by accepting it, to remove the state which he describes as "intolerable" and to replace it with one which is acceptable to both sides of the House.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for moving this Amendment so briefly, because, as he has pointed out, we discussed the substance of the Amendment when discussing new Clause No. 3, which we accepted late last night. There was only one thing which I thought was a little unfair in what he said. That was when he implied that our actions had had something to do with the Amendment. Of course, if the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), in his new mood, had had his way and a system of flexible rent control had been introduced in 1957, we should not have had this problem.
The problem now is that, in addition to a rigid system of statutory rent control, about 900,000 people have been decontrolled. I should like to emphasise once again what I said on Second Reading, that the reason for this separation and this staging is not a matter of principle, but of pure administrative convenience,


that if we had brought everybody in simultaneously to our new flexible rent control, the tribunals, the rent assessment committees and the rent officers would have been crushed and overburdened by their labour. Therefore, we chose to do it in two stages.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that the reason for the stages is not that we like to perpetuate a two-class State—we like to move as fast as we can—but that we know that, in order to move, we have to do the first priority first—

Mr. Norman Cole: rose—

Mr. Crossman: I will just finish this, if I may.
If we had literally accepted the Amendment and brought in one single system of flexible regulation, we should have had such a crush that we would not have been able to deal with applications. A total of 900,000 people would have been brought back into recontrol, plus 2¼ million houses with their landlords and tenants, all with equal right to go to the rent officer and, through the rent officer, to the rent assessment committee. It was to avoid that pressure that we made this separation in time between one and the other.
I do not want to see either a three-class system or a two-class system. I want to move, and this can be done, but I must again give the warning which I gave to my hon. Friends yesterday—where we have, as London has, 300,000 decontrolled people being brought in, it will be a matter not of months but of years before we can make an Order which brings the controlled tenant under regulation.
I would ask the House to reject the Amendment on grounds of administrative impossibility.

Mr. Cole: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which he did not give way for me to put. We all appreciate the great problem of the decontrolled and the administrative matters involved in dealing with it. If one house which is decontrolled is dealt with by the rent officer and a half a dozen houses in the same road happen, because of the

time of occupation—before 1957—to be still controlled, why should not the rent officer procedure apply to the whole lot in the same manner?

Mr. Crossman: Apparently one has to say everything twice to be intelligible. I said that the reason was that there would be too many cases. We have put forward this system of regulation for administrative convenience and not for any difference of principle. This is the difference which I had with some of my hon. Friends who wanted to make a difference of principle here. I see no difference of principle.
If one suddenly, and overnight, declared (a) that 900,000 recontrolled decontrolled tenants and landlords should have the right to rent officers and rent assessment committees; and (b) that the tenants and landlords of 2¼ million houses should have an equal and simultaneous right, one would either have to set up such an enormous number of rent officers and rent assessment committees, for which we do not have the personnel, or would have a queue so long and such frustration of waiting that the system would break down.
Therefore, we prepared the Measure in two stages, (a) recontrol and giving the recontrolled tenant and landlord prior access; and (b) when that is complete, an Order flexible from area to area, bringing in the controlled tenants. The problem of controlled and decontrolled houses in the same street, perhaps side by side, results from what happened between 1957 and 1959, when the process of decontrol has halted—I will not go into the reasons—so that some people remained frozen, as it were, in statutory controlled property while others were in decontrolled property. It is to deal with the practical problem that we have put this forward for administrative convenience. The Amendment, if accepted, would destroy that convenience.

Mr. Graham Page: The administrative convenience, in our view, goes so much to the principle that the Minister should have arranged the whole system differently. He could have avoided the crush about which he spoke by applying his regulated tenancy system to a lower rateable value limit and to specific areas.
The whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's system of regulated tenancies is the fair rent, but if the system is to produce a fair rent for regulated property it should apply that fair rent at the outset to controlled property as well. To leave out controlled property is an admission that controlled property is now under an unfair rent and that it does not matter to the Government that it is—that it can await the Minister's convenience.
We knew that the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Amendment. I had hoped than when the point was raised again in this brief way we would have a stronger undertaking from him that he appreciates the urgency of bringing in controlled property, that he would perhaps delay applying the regulated tenancy system in areas where it was not

really necessary and that when he is setting up the rent officers and rent assessment committees he would bear these matters in mind.

I am sorry to see the Minister looking puzzled. Perhaps I am going too fast for him. I am merely saying that where he is able to set up a rent officer and rent assessment committee in an area he should bring controlled property in very quickly. Because the right hon. Gentleman has not recognised this principle, which we feel is essential, and because he has not given a firm undertaking in this connection I must advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That "or otherwise" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 212.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[4.15 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Eden, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley


Barlow, Sir John
Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Batsford, Brian
Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Foster, Sir John
Mathew, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gammans, Lady
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David


Box, Donald
Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Grant, Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Braine, Bernard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Murton, Oscar


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Burden, F. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Buxton, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Campbell, Gordon
Hay, John
Peel, John


Carlisle, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hendry, Forbes
Peyton, John


Chataway, Christopher
Higgins, Terence L.
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Robson Brown, Sir William


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lagden, Godfrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Viscount
Roots, William


Dean, Paul
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Royle, Anthony


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-Stevas, Norman




Scott-Hopkins, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Whitelaw, William


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Shepherd, William
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wise, A. R.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodnutt, Mark


Stanley, Hn. Richard
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Younger, Hn. George


Stodart, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Francis Pym and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Alldritt, Walter
Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Baxter, William
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Will


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Boston, T. G.
Holman, Percy
Parkin, B. T.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Horner, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howie, W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hoy, James
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Stones, William


Dunnett, Jack
McCann, J.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


English, Michael
Mclnnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ennals, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Foley, Maurice
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Ford, Ben
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Robert
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Grey, Charles
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)







Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Winterbottom, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.
Mr. George Lawson and


Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mr. Harry Gourlay.

Clause 2.—(RENT UNDER REGULATED TENANCY.)

Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 41, after "tenancy" to insert:
or under an existing controlled tenancy shall not exceed the rent registered under this Act in respect of the dwelling-house to which such registration applies, or where no rent is so registered, the rent agreed by the tenant and the landlord to be payable so far as the same does not exceed (in the case of an existing controlled tenancy) a sum 15 per cent. greater than the controlled rent payable for the last rental period preceding the date upon which this Act takes effect, and".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): It is suggested that it would be for the convenience of the House that with this Amendment we should take Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, to leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Allason: The effect of this Amendment, taken with Amendment No. 10, would be to create a fresh system of dealing with rents before registration. In the case of a regulated tenancy, until registration the rent would be the rent agreed between landlord and tenant and, after registration, would be the registered rent. Instead of the 1957 Act controlled tenancies remaining, as they now do in the Bill, at the 1957 level, if there is agreement between landlord and tenant, but only then, the 1957 rent could rise by 15 per cent. just once. After registration, as already provided in the Bill, the registered rent would become the rent to be paid.
We have by new Clause No. 3 changed the system of bringing in the registered rent for the controlled tenant. Theremight, therefore, be some necessity for amending wording to this Amendment, but I do not think that it would be particularly significant.
As regards the regulated tenancy, we suggest here rather simpler wording than there is in Clause 3. In Committee, I commented on the fact that some of the wording of Clause 3 is absolutely inexplicable to the layman. It has to be read many times before one can make head or tail of it. I hoped that I had dropped a hint that rather simpler word-

ing might be introduced, but we have not heard anything about that from the Government, and the idea has obviously been abandoned by them. It is interesting to note that The Times, commenting today on another all-night sitting, remarks:
The Government hope to complete their reading of the Bill today.
I suppose that this is one of the Press leaks from the Ministry, but in any case it is very encouraging to know that the Ministry is reading the Bill. It does not seem to have done a great deal of it so far.
The most significant part of our proposal is to leave out of Clause 3 subsection (3,a), which deals with the inability to increase the rent of a regulated tenancy before registration within three years; that is, if there has been one regulated tenancy and then, within three years, there is another regulated tenancy, that rent must not be increased. I think that we have moved on some way since that concept entered the Bill. We have surely moved a long way from the idea of there being any question of three years being necessary before registration is introduced. It seems to us, in our present knowledge after detailed discussion of the Bill, that subsection (3,a) is not particularly necessary.
The more important element of the Amendment relates to controlled tenancy arrangements, and it would allow an immediate movement towards a fair rent. The Minister told us yesterday how keen he was to move as soon as possible towards a fair rent and fulfil his election pledge, but he is not intending to make any move towards it, as we found out in our discussion on new Clause No. 3, until we get to registration, and that, in turn, cannot take place until there has been a considerable easing in the recruitment of rent officers.
It therefore seems quite reasonable here to introduce a permissive Clause. If a landlord and tenant both agree that an increase in controlled rent is fair why should they not be allowed to have it? At the moment, it is illegal for that increase in rent to be made. Even if the tenant wishes to pay the increase, he


cannot do so. In this Clause it is purely permissive. As it moves in the right direction, I hope that the Government will accept it.
We have put down only 15 per cent., which is in line with the 15 per cent. which the Government themselves suggest as the first stage in graduation from controlled to registered rent. In view of the rise in costs since 1957 when these rents were first settled, it seemed perfectly reasonable where there is agreement to allow an increase up to 15 per cent., but not more than that.

4.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I shall try to follow the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in the speedy and succinct way in which he dealt with these Amendments. I do not think either of them raises issues which have not been fairly fully discussed before. On Amendment No. 9, which deals with controlled tenancies, we have already decided that they should not be immediately put into regulation for reasons which have been explored very fully.
We have also decided, in looking at new Clause No. 3, that controlled rents should remain at their 1957 level until such time as fair rents are fixed for them. It is not desirable to have an interim period in which they have a once-for-all increase of this kind. All that has been already explored and I see nothing in what the hon. Member said on which I could advise the House that we should depart from that view.
On the matter of the fixing of the interim rents until regulation takes place, again we discussed last night the question of the justice of freezing rents until we can get the Part II machinery functioning. The best thing to do is to keep the present arrangements for freezing rents. We hope and expect that Part II will come into operation certainly over a very large part of the country and over the rest of the country quite quickly. I do not want to commit my right hon. Friend to fixing any particular time for doing it, because one does not know, when the Bill is going through Parliament, what the position will be when it goes through, but we have no reason at the moment to

think that we shall not be able to start the review of fair rents quite quickly.
That is the best and most satisfactory way in which to get an adjustment between the present position and the fair rents which will come under Part II. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept either of these Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4.—(ADJUSTMENT, BEFORE REGISTRATION, OF LIMIT IMPOSED BY SECTION 3.)

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 28, after "by", to insert:
agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant or in default thereof by".
We discussed words similar to these in Standing Committee. We are here dealing with a Clause which sets out to deal with the situation of adjustment before the registration limit imposed by Clause 3. Here we are dealing with a contract between a tenant and a landlord which can be altered in certain circumstances by an appropriate amount regarding various services. As the Clause is drawn, to make that new agreement valid it has to be determined by a county court. What we suggest in this Amendment is that it should take into consideration a happy agreement between the landlord and tenant.
If we look at Clause 6(5) we find these exact words. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if, having looked at this matter, he can explain why we cannot have the same form of wording as exists in Clause 6 in Clause 4. I should have thought that would be something which would be welcomed as a happy agreement between landlord and tenant without resorting to a court to give a clear determination.
I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): My right hon. Friend the Minister, in Committee, said that we would be prepared to look at the Clause again to make absolutely certain that it does not exclude agreements, because we agree that that would be a disastrous consequence of the drafting as it is obviously imperative to encourage agreements as


much as possible. We are satisfied, having re-examined Clause 4, that this Amendment is unnecessary.
The Clause simply introduces some modifications into the limits imposed by Clause 3(3), that is to say, the limit within which the parties are free to agree a rent. If they agree what increases or decreases are reasonable in the circumstances dealt with in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 4, no question arises. If no question arises there is no question referable to the court, no matter which falls for the court's adjudication; the court does not come into the picture.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) may care to know that a similar formal provision is provided for in Section 2(b) of the Rent Act, 1920. There were no doubt innumerable increases or decreases under that Section of the Rent Act, 1920, made in the 37 years of the Act's life, but there is no indication whatever that the words used in that Section ever discouraged agreements or caused any difficulties whatever.

Mr. A. P. Costain: This is an important point. Would the Attorney-General care to clarify how this should be documented? Is it necessary for there to be an exchange of letters and of contracts? Where should this agreement be shown? So many small landlords do not understand the law, although they are all anxious to maintain the law. In order to get the matter right, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a little more advice to the House on this question?

The Attorney-General: I should not think that a formal agreement or contract was required, but it is always desirable for the parties to embody any agreement in writing and an exchange of letters would be quite adequate for the purpose.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The assurance of the Attorney-General will probably carry a great deal of weight. It may well be that we shall not feel it necessary to discuss this matter much further, but there is a point which has been made about the drafting of this Clause which the Attorney-General has not answered. That is the difference in this respect between the words in the subsection we are discussing and in Clause 6(5). That subsection also begins with the words, "Any

question" and there is express provision for agreement in writing. The question naturally poses itself: if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right about Clause 4, why are these words necessary in Clause 6?

The Attorney-General: By Clause 6(5) it is necessary to refer an agreement, because otherwise the parties could not override the limit laid down by Clause 5. On the other hand, Clause 4 is concerned with agreements, since it varies the limit on the contractual rent. That, I understand, is the distinction justifying the difference.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: In view of the assurance given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6.—(VARIATION, BEFORE REGISTRATION, OF RENT RECOVERABLE DURING STATUTORY PERIODS.)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 11, after "weeks" to insert:
, or, in the case of a dwelling-house in Scotland, six months,".
This is one of the Amendments which the Government have tabled in response to representations by the official Opposition in Committee. It follows an undertaking which I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry)—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment—that Amendments would be made to the Bill to ensure that it fitted in with the Scottish rating and valuation timetable. The Amendment ensures that, providing that the landlord takes prompt action when he receives his rate demand, he can recover an amount from the tenant corresponding to the increase in rates for the preceding part of the rating year—that is, from May to November.
We discussed this fully in Committee, and I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Under-Secretary has pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is for the moment out of the Chamber. I would certainly not wish


to speak on his behalf on matters of Scottish law. My recollection coincides with that of the Under-Secretary that the Amendment deals with the point which my hon. Friend raised. Perhaps, therefore, the Under-Secretary will not think me churlish if I offer, on behalf of my hon. Friend, a provisional word of thanks.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(DUTY OF LANDLORD TO SUPPLY STATEMENT OF RENT UNDER PREVIOUS TENANCY.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 20, to leave out "fourteen" and to insert "twenty-eight".
This refers to the terrible offence of a landlord without excuse failing to supply within 14 days particulars of rent of the last regulated tenancy. The most appalling penalties are imposed for this dreadful offence. I agree that in certain circumstances the offence could be dreadful, but a requirement that the particulars must be supplied within 14 days can be a very stiff requirement for the innocent landlord.
In Committee, I gave at least one example of a case where the tenant would be entitled to demand information on this and where the information that he received would be entirely irrelevant. The landlord would be forced to give it, but probably at the same time would point out that it did not make any difference to the situation, as it was irrelevant. Nevertheless, only 14 days are allowed. This seems to be a very short time. However, it is in line with the way the Bill was originally drafted, because all the periods were set extremely tight.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to give me the first breach of the very rigid timing by allowing an increase from 14 days to 28 days on an Amendment I moved. In consequence, the Government are considering further amendment to the timetable. I therefore hope that the Government will agree that 14 days is rather tight timing for the landlord, especially when he may well have to carry out considerable investigations before he can give the answer.

The Attorney-General: Our object in prescribing 14 days was to ensure that the landlord replied quickly to any request from the tenant for information about the rent ceiling when no rent for the dwelling had been registered. The House might care to know that the offence which is created by the Clause has a counterpart in Section 11 of the Rent Act, 1920. That provided that the landlord, on being requested by the tenant, should on pain of penalty supply him within 14 days with a statement of the standard rent of the dwelling-house.
We felt that it seemed reasonable to follow in this respect a provision which had been on the Statute Book for about 37 years. In the meantime, there has been the widespread extension and use of the telephone service and one would have thought that the landlord's difficulties in getting information would be likely to be rather less than they were in 1920.
I confess that I am not very impressed with the reasons which have been advanced in support of the proposition that the landlord is in difficulty in obtaining the necessary information in 14 days. However, let the spirit of compromise reign. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be disposed to split the difference and say 21 days. If so, I will undertake to ensure that that compromise is put into effect in another place.

Mr. Allason: In view of that very reasonable spirit of compromise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 22, to leave out from "exceeding" to the end of line 24 and to insert:
fifty pounds and, on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds".
The short point here is that the Amendment will remove the penalty of imprisonment which the Clause at the moment attaches to this offence. This point was discussed in Committee. We recognised that there was a considerable difference between the kind of offence which arises out of harassment and this kind of offence, which is concerned merely with failure to supply information. We agreed to consider the point.
The Amendment deletes the penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months but increases the fine for a first offence to £50, which is a recognition of the increased cost of living. For a second offence we propose a fine not exceeding £100, because we want to make it clear that the habitual forestaller should be subject to severe penalties, because he can use that to frustrate the finding out of information.
I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House as being an improvement to the Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment I would remind the House that we are taking the not dissimilar Amendment No. 18, in line 23, leave out from "bounds" to end of line 24.

Mr. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 18—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We sometimes consider one Amendment with another, but only one Amendment is ever before the House formally. The hon. Gentleman may speak to his Amendment, but he cannot move it.

Mr. Costain: When I spoke yesterday, when the atmosphere was not quite as cool as it is today and when the same spirit of compromise did not reign, I made some reference to the good work which my colleagues had done in taming the Bill in Committee. I had in mind this Clause, because it seems intolerable that there should be a term of imprisonment for a simple offence. When the Minister had this in mind in his early days in the Ministry, I am sure that he had taken account of the Rachman type of landlord and, when the Parliamentary draftsman asked, "What sort of penalty should be imposed upon the landlord?", the Minister immediately said, "Put him in gaol."
We have the extraordinary position that a person in this country should be sent to goal for three months simply because he has not produced the necessary forms. We know the Government are very fond of forms, and I congratulate them that they have now relented and brought this provision back to reasonable proportions.
Our reason for putting down the Amendment is to leave the penalty as

it was in the past. There has been some hint that the penalty has been increased because of the fear of inflation under this Socialist Government. We on this side are greatly concerned about this, but I I hope that they have more faith in their own administration than to feel that the penalty should be increased to cover the cost of inflation.
I cannot move our Amendment, but I suggest that if the Minister in his compromising manner would accept it instead of his own, it would abolish the gaol sentence but put the penalties back to what they were, because the existing penalties are quite adequate for what is generally regarded as being a technical offence.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: At present, those who are concerned, with the Home Secretary, with the question of sentencing and keeping our prisons free from a mass of civil debtors, alcoholics and other people of that kind who are from time to time sentenced to terms of imprisonment, will find it most unwelcome if elderly landladies who have failed to supply statements of what are appropriate rents are to join the other throng and inhabit Her Majesty's prisons. At present, the whole move is to get away from short sentences of imprisonment of any kind; and, certainly, they should not be used for what are purely civil matters.
One can only get an effective deterrent by hitting the landlord in the pocket, rather than seeking to deprive him of his livelihood and sending him to prison. I hope that these additional words will underline the fact that we should not consider at all applying sentences of imprisonment for this class of offence, if offence it is, or any other similar class of offence. One will not deal with the really evil cases of what has been called Rachmanism by sending such a person to prison. The type of person who engages in a practice of this kind is he who seeks to make a profit. The thing to do is to remove his profit and see that he stands to make a loss.
If that is followed as a general principle, I believe it will be a wise principle to follow, and I hope that the Attorney-General, who I am glad to see in his place, would agree with that as a general principle and would share the view that


it is by way of a fine and not by way of imprisonment, that not only this offence but all other offences under the provisions of the Bill should be dealt with.
I must say that I share the view expressed by hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) because this provision would be putting the pimp, the importuner and the person who lives on immoral earnings in exactly the same bracket as the elderly landlady who, through muddle and confusion, fails to provide an accurate statement of rent. When one sees that, one realises how preposterous the Bill was in its original state. I am glad that on this matter it is my hon. Friends who have been guardians of the liberty of the subject.

The Attorney-General: I doubt whether I would be in order in following the interesting observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on penal policy and the problem of the short term of imprisonment. If it was in order for me to do so, I would be inclined to agree with what he said about the latter, but he will be aware that the Government Amendment achieves, in this instance at any rate, the purpose he finds so laudable. It eliminates imprisonment as the punishment and substitutes a maximum fine of £50 for the first offence and £100 for the second.
I can certainly give no assurance that throughout the whole range of the Bill the penalties of imprisonment will be excluded. Before very long we shall come to Clauses 25 and 26, and it may be that when we come to true Rachmanism and harassment and unlawful eviction I shall have the hon. Gentleman with me in saying that the deprivation of liberty is certainly the appropriate penalty for scoundrels who engage in practices of that kind.
We on this side feel that a maximum fine of £20 would be unlikely to deter the type of bad landlord whom we are getting at in this part of the Bill. His purpose would be to recover from the tenant more than the maximum rent permitted under the Bill, and he could achieve a considerable financial advantage. Accordingly, we feel that a maximum fine of £50 for the first offence and

£100 for the second offence is not excessive.
As for the absent-minded lady who commits an offence of this kind, there is no doubt whatever that if she came before a court and, verily was merely absentminded and not an exploiting woman who was seeking to bleed her tenants, the magistrates, in their mercy, would deal with the matter either by an unconditional discharge or a minimal penalty.
Accordingly, I submit that the Government's proposals are, in the circumstances, reasonable.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is agreeable that both sides of the House now take the view that imprisonment is an inappropriate penalty for this offence, and we concur, as the two Amendments on the Notice Paper do, in the main purpose of taking that sanction out of the Bill. The only difference that arises between us is on the quantum of the fine. I do not think that is a matter which need detain us very long, because it is a maximum fine and magistrates will no doubt exercise sense and discretion in the amount they impose.
I was intrigued by what the Parliamentary Secretary said when he referred to the increase in the provisions of the fine being connected with the development of inflation. It is rather interesting to note that when the Bill was introduced, towards the end of March, £20 was thought to be a sufficient fine whereas, for a first offence, at the end of June, £50 is regarded as the appropriate figure. Even for a Government whose economic policy is guided by the First Secretary of State, that is indeed galloping inflation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(TENANCIES ENDING BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 38, after "made", to insert:
after hearing such other person or persons as may in the opinion of the court be concerned".
This Amendment arose, as the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, from a short discussion we had in Committee. As the House will be aware, the Clause to which it is proposed to apply this Amendment relates to the case of tenancies ending before the commencement of the Act, and


subsection (1,b) deals with the case where an order for possession had been made before the commencement of the Act, but had not been executed. It deals with the procedure to be followed by which the matter can be brought back to the court and if the order is of a kind which if asked for after the Act had begun to operate would not have been made, the court can rescind it.
5.0 p.m.
The point which arose in Committee and which the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would be good enough to consider is the position of the third party. We are concerned, in particular, with the position of the prospective tenant. The landlord has obtained an order for possession, but has not executed it and he has made in good faith an agreement with the third party to give him the tenancy. It seems to us to be common justice that when the court is considering rescinding that order the other person interested, the person who could have expected to be the tenant and who has been given an agreement by the landlord in good faith, should have at least the chance of being there to argue his case.
We were advised that under the Bill as it stands he would not have that right. We had some discussion in Committee and the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that in those circumstances the landlord would not be liable in damages to the third party. With respect, I agree with that advice, but that still leaves the third party out on a limb. He may have good reasons for wanting to take up the tenancy, for not only may he have incurred expense in reasonable anticipation but he may have lost the chance of some other tenancy. He might be seriously prejudiced by the rescinding of the order and all we ask is that he, together with the landlord and the earlier tenant against whom the order has been made should all have the chance of coming forward and presenting their case.
The Parliamentary Secretary was courteous enough to write to me on 24th June to give me the result of his consideration. I am sure that he will not object if I read the relevant passage from his letter. He said:
As you pointed out a prospective tenant has no right to be heard in an action which

a former tenant brings before the court for the revocation of an order for possession which has previously been granted against him. A good deal of publicity has been given to the Rent Bill"—
that is undoubtedly true—
and we think it unlikely that landlords or prospective tenants would be caught unawares by the provisions of Clause 14. As we made clear our intention to restore security of tenure we would be surprised if prospective tenants had entered into firm commitments without being certain that they would be able to occupy the premises.
This is a rather strong assertion, especially when applied to the case with which we are here concerned where an order for possession has been actually obtained by the landlord prior to the passing of the Bill.
I should have thought that where an order for possession has been obtained it would be reasonable for the landlord to enter into agreement with a prospective tenant. Whether or not the general effect of the Bill is to spread alarm and despondency has been argued on other points, but on this point we ought to take care of the interests of the prospective tenant. The Amendment does not seek to give him any priority over the sitting tenant or the landlord. It seeks to give him only the right to be heard by the court which is to decide whether or not to rescind the original order. This seems to us to be a modest but necessary proposal in view of the fact that as the Bill now stands he does not have that right. We seek for him only the right to be heard.

The Attorney-General: We have looked at this point, but we have come to the conclusion that it is unlikely that the circumstances which have been envisaged by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will arise in practice. I make the point which was made in the letter, which, in my respectful submission, really deals with this matter, that ever since the introduction of the Protection from Eviction Bill it has been public knowledge that restrictions were being imposed on the right of the landlord to obtain possession of premises let as a dwelling. A landlord with a sitting tenant would be most foolhardy if he entered into a contract to give possession of his premises to another tenant on a certain date unless he was satisfied that the sitting tenant would


not be protected by or would not take advantage of the protection he enjoyed from the Protection from Eviction Act, or this Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Attorney-General's proposition may have a good deal to be said for it, but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply it to the case where the landlord has already obtained an order for possession?

The Attorney-General: I think that I would, because the Protection from Eviction Act has been in operation for many months and it has been made abundantly clear that the Bill continues the provisions against eviction in that Act. In any event, the Amendment would not produce a workable state of affairs. Under earlier Clauses a tenant whose tenancy has not expired will be able to hold over as a statutory tenant. No new tenant therefore will be able to move in until the former tenant gives up possession. The effect of Clause 14 has produced the same state of affairs as the right hon. Gentleman has described in the case where the tenancy has expired when the Bill comes into operation but the former tenant is still in possession.
In our view, to allow a prospective tenant to compete with a sitting tenant would frustrate the operation of the Clause. Where application is made under the Clause, the judge has solely to look at the situation as it was when the possession order was made and to decide whether had the Bill been then in operation that order would have been made. It is not a ground for possession against a regulated tenant that the landlord wishes to let the premises to another tenant. Accordingly, in my submission, it follows that no useful purpose would be served, and indeed there would be a waste of money, if the prospective tenant in those circumstances were given the right to be heard in such proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman may feel reassured when I tell him that a provision similar to that in this Clause was included in previous Acts which brought in a further measure of rent control, for example, in Section 5(3) of the 1920 Rent Act and in Section 4 of the 1939 Act. In neither of those cases was it considered necessary to have a provision

on the lines of the Amendment, and there is no evidence that any hardship was caused as a result. Although I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we looked at this matter anxiously to ensure that no injustice was done we felt that the circumstances which he envisages would not arise in practice and that what he proposes would be quite unworkable.

Mr. Graham Page: I must say, with great respect to the Attorney-General, that his speech was rather like the comment of the person who saw a giraffe for the first time and said that he just did not believe it. The Attorney-General said that these circumstances are very unlikely to occur, but far from it. They are very likely to occur. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman observe that this Amendment is to Clause 14(1,b) and that paragraph (b) applies when a court order has been made? All the parties have relied upon an order of the court. This is not something prospective, in the future. The order of the court has been made, and will have been made in face of the Protection from Eviction Act.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that everyone ought to have known about the Protection from Eviction Act. But they did. The order will have been made under that Act. The parties know of the order and, on the faith of it, have entered into certain other transactions. It is not only a matter of the prospective tenant. The owner of the property who obtained the court order may have entered into a contract with a prospective purchaser to sell the property. A mortgagee, in reliance upon the order in the hands of his mortgagor, may have taken steps, perhaps, to recover possession of the property or some irrevocable steps in relation to the property.
The Attorney-General said that it would be most foolhardy for any owner, in face of what we are doing in the House, to disregard Clause 14. Who outside the House knows about Clause 14 of the Bill? [Interruption.] The Minister of Public Building and Works interrupting from a recumbent position in the corner of the Front Bench, has not been in the Chamber or in Standing Committee for any part of our proceedings on the Bill. If he wishes to interrupt me in the course of the debate and tell me what is contained in Clause 14, I shall give way.
Clause 14(1,b) covers the case in which an order has been made. Apparently, it is suggested that all parties who know of the order would be most foolhardy to rely on it or to think that it will still remain after we have finished with this Bill. Earlier today, the Parliamentary Secretary made a most significant remark. Speaking of what would happen when the Bill became law, he added, "We do not know when the Bill will become law". Neither does the public outside. It is mere guesswork to wonder whether an order of this sort will be executed before the Bill becomes law. A man may be lucky and may be able to have his warrant for possession before it does become law, and he may not.

To suggest that these circumstances may not arise, that no one ought to rely on a court order, and that the Amendment is impracticable is not to look the problem in the eye. The Amendment is brief and it can achieve its purpose. It can be made workable under Section 17 of the 1920 Act which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make the necessary rules of court. The Attorney-General has not given the Amendment proper attention.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 204.

Division No. 223.]
AYES
[5.13 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marten, Neil


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Emery, Peter
Mathew, Robert


Astor, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Maude, Angus


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Foster, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mitchell, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gammans, Lady
More, Jasper


Bell, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Box, Donald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brewis, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peyton, John


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buxton, Ronald
Hendry, Forbes
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Campbell, Gordon
Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roots, William


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shepherd, William


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Currie, G. B. H.
Lagden, Godfrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John




Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Younger, Hn. George


Wall, Patrick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Ward, Dame Irene
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. Ian MacArthur and




Mr. Francis Pym.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
O'Malley, Brian


Albu, Austen
Harper, Joseph
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Padley, Walter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Heffer, Eric S.
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Joel
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Baxter, William
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Beaney, Alan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Parkin, B. T.


Bence, Cyril
Hooson, H. E.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Horner, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Popplewell, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boston, T. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Redhead, Edward


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchanan, Richard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, John


Driberg, Tom
McCann, J.
Stones, William


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Maccoll, James
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, Maurice
Mclnnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thornton, Ernest


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tomney, Frank


Ennals, David
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Foley, Maurice

Weitzman, David


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Will (M'Chester, Exchange)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Zilliacus, K.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, John (Aberavon)



Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan
Mr. George Lawson and


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Harry Gourlay.


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Ogden, Eric

Clause 14.—(TENANCIES ENDING BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, Amend went No. 20, in page 10, line 4, to leave out from "Scotland" to end of line 7 and to insert:
in subsection (1), for the expression 'order for the possession of the dwelling-house' there shall be substituted the expression decree of removing or warrant of ejection from the dwelling-house or other like order'".
I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we might consider at the same time Amendment No. 63, also standing in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 17, line 23, leave out "and warrant of ejection" and insert:
or warrant of ejection or other like order
—since it embraces the same point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House has no objection, I have none.

Dr. Mabon: Both these Amendments are in response to complaints—if I may put it in rather strong terms—that we have received during the proceedings of the Bill. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in particular raised a number of matters with me, some of which we discussed in Committee, but we did net discuss this point, although I think that I did mention it to two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry).
I am told that there are seven actions of removing, one of which goes back to the Act of Sederunt of 14th December, 1756. To put all this into the Bill would be rather lengthy and that is why we are using the phrase "or other like order" in this Amendment. The advice given to me on the point is perfectly sound, having been gone over many times, and I hope that those interested in Scotland and those who represent Scotland here will agree that the Government have made an earnest attempt to try to meet the point.

Mr. David Steel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking account of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). This originated from a question raised with me by some of my constituents when they saw the draft of the Bill. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which this provision has been redrafted. Will he confirm

that the use of the phrase "or other like body" covers a warrant of summary ejection?

Dr. Mabon: Yes.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I, too, should like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for these Amendments. However, I think that he is a little modest when speaking about "complaints". After all, he got a number of suggestions. Although, in Committee, this point was not raised, a number of suggestions were made with a view to improving the deplorable drafting of the Bill in its original form. I am glad that he has taken proper legal advice and I am perfectly satisfied with the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.—(RELEASE FROM CONTROL.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 8, leave out Clause 15.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 17.—(REGISTRATION AREAS AND RENT OFFICERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)

Mr. Oscar Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 20, at the end to insert:
and such non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population in excess of 60,000 as may so elect".
This point was raised in Standing Committee. I put it to the Minister by citing my own constituency, the Borough of Poole, a non-county borough of some 94,000 inhabitants which hopes shortly to be raised in status. The borough's population is 29 per cent. of the total of Dorset's, paying £2 million in precept to the Dorset County Council, and its rateable value is 38 per cent. of the total value of the county.
Poole is 20 miles from Dorchester, a small county town. The point I raised—and I cited Poole as an example—was that it seems wrong that a rent officer working in a county headquarters should be responsible for such a large non-county borough as that which I have the honour to represent. The Minister was kind enough in Committee to show interest in this proposal, but it was pointed out that there were also a number of very large urban district councils. The right hon. Gentleman said that in total there were


30 non-county boroughs or large urban district councils with populations of 60,000 or more. I congratulate the Minister on giving that figure off the cuff, for it is exactly right.
In order to meet his point about the large number of extra staff who would be employed should he accede to this request, I suggest that the rent officers in those non-county boroughs and urban districts should be given such other areas surrounding those towns as the Minister may decide in his overall plan.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), because it seems very clear that local knowledge will be of tremendous value in this connection and there is no reason why we should not bring in the non-county boroughs which are large authorities and which would be in touch with the details of the vicinity and which would he much more capable of administering the proposals of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment sympathetically.

Mr. Cole: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I do not see how any extra work involved can be a reason for resisting the Amendment, because, with a population of 60,000 and possibly the surrounding area in addition, it is likely that there will be a rent officer in any case. The county authority will almost certainly consult the local people about appointments and a non-county borough or urban district council of the sort of size mentioned would be able to do the job itself. I should have thought that we were pushing at an open door as regards efficiency and that anything which could be done to mollify those non-county boroughs which hope to have county borough status the House would feel disposed to do. For those reasons, and as the proposal seems to underline the efficiency of the regulation system, I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I support the Amendment while realising that no question of county borough status is involved. There are many housing authorities with populations of more than 60,000 which are unlikely to get county borough status. Surely this is a matter

of administrative simplicity. County councils not being housing authorities ought in circumstances in which they have offices in the same town—and I am thinking of my own town of Bedford where the Bedfordshire County Council may be appointed the authority but where the Bedford Borough Council has most experience of housing questions—to pass on the responsibility. I appreciate the difficulty that with this proposal one has to go right across the board, but I ask the Minister to consider the introduction of variations in the administration of the scheme.

Mr. Crossman: As I promised, I have looked at this proposal with considerable sympathy. I have been through the whole case with a map to see what would be involved. The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has inadvertently put his finger on the key disadvantage of his proposal by mentioning that in the town of Bedford there would also be the county council so that under the Amendment there would be two rent officers for the one area.
Incidentally, the Amendment would require the appointment of 32 extra rent officer organisations. I was not correct when I said that the number would be 30. I would like to satisfy the prestige and feeling of status of these areas, but when the Opposition have been expressing the view, very properly, that I should not pile up unnecessary bureaucracy, it is worth remembering that we would require 32 extra organisations.
In the example of Dorset and Poole—and the suggestion is very convincing—Poole is clearly an area large enough to require a rent officer. However, I have been talking to the county clerks about this matter and in that case there is intrinsically no reason why a rent officer for the area should not be in Poole operating from that borough and working out to the adjacent rural area. I have learned something from the stimulus of the Committee and I believe that what I have done would be more sensible than what is proposed in the Amendment. I have indicated that the county clerks ought to consult the clerks of the county districts, wherever that is appropriate, in order to ensure that the rent officer is in the right place and not necessarily always in the city or town where the county council offices are, so that he is


in the area where the work is most likely to be heavy. That would place him in the areas of the boroughs as distinct from the rural areas.
With that assurance, I think that we would be wise not to overload ourselves with 32 extra organisations, but to make sure that in every case the county councils use the right people and have the office in the right place.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a good deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are all very sensitive to the proper feelings of local pride and the desire for proper local status, and I am certainly the last person to underrate them. On the other hand, when we have to balance against that the creation of further administrative organisations which are unnecessary for the operation of the Bill, the balance comes down somewhat against the proposal. That is particularly so as we have urged again and again that in our view the right hon. Gentleman has taken on too heavy an administrative burden anyhow, one which is likely to collapse as a result of his decision to apply control and regulation throughout the country. That is his responsibility of which we have warned him, but in those circumstances we should be wrong to take on our shoulders even a slight additional responsibility for overloading the system which is already likely to collapse of its own weight.
Therefore, for my part—I do not know what my hon. Friends will do—I do not think that we can press the Amendment further, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to meet the practical as opposed to the prestige issues. It is obvious sense in the example of Poole and Dorset that the rent officer and his organisation should operate from that large, prosperous and admirably represented borough. It is obvious in many other cases that the centre should be the centre of population, the number of houses and so on. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is consulting the county clerks. There might otherwise be a tendency simply to operate from county headquarters, wherever they may be located. I hope that in the circumstances my hon. Friends will feel that we ought not to overload the structure which we have told the right hon. Gentleman many times to be already overstrained.

Mr. Arthur Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not open to my hon. Friend to seek the leave of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has mistaken me. I was calling attention to the fact that the hon. Member, who did not move the Amendment, was seeking to speak for a second time. The only hon. Member who can speak for a second time is the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Mr. Murton: In view of the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given and knowing that he will handle this matter with great care, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 11, line 20 at the end to insert:
and for the purposes of this Act the area of the Common Council of the City of London shall be deemed to include the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple".
This Amendment corrects an error in the Clause. It was not appreciated that the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple would not otherwise be included in the City of London. In order that the full crunch of the Regulations should fall upon the Temple it is proposed to put them in. I should say that it was the authorities of the Temple who were courteous enough to draw attention to this. Hon. Members may reflect that it really was "kissing the rod." There are some hon. Members who live in the Temple and they will be happy, no doubt, to think that they have basic protection. I think that this is an Amendment which should go into the Bill.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I think that this is about the most ridiculous of all ridiculous Amendments. What possible purpose can there be in extending rent control to the Middle and the Inner Temple? The accommodation there is of a fairly high quality, the rents are fairly high and it is let to people who can well afford the rents. I have no doubt that the authorities of the


Temple are anxious not to go through the ridiculous procedure of appointing their own rent officer, but I think that this underlines the stupidity of a scheme which simply, in order to be uniform, has to spread this provision over local authorities such as the Middle and Inner Temple, whether or not the authorities asked for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 32, to leave out
and specified in the scheme".
This is a fairly short point, but it is more than a drafting Amendment. The position is that in subsection (3,a) it is prescribed that the remuneration and allowances for rent officers have to be both approved by the Treasury and specified in the scheme. Alas, they will still have to be approved by the Treasury—there seems to be no way of getting round that—but there are advantages in not having them specified in the scheme. It makes for greater flexibility in adjusting scales of remuneration, where necessary. It is quite true that a scheme could be followed, and a formal variation could be made, but it seems better that, in order to be sure that the scales of remuneration can be adapted where necessary, according to what is found necessary by experience, it is probably wiser not to have them expressed in the scheme. As they are to be approved by the Treasury anyway, it does not really give one very great flexibility.

Mr. Corfield: I can see the hon. Gentleman's difficulty over this, because it is apparent there may be difficulty in securing the services of suitable people, particularly as there is not really much indication what the qualifications are to be. There is something to be said for keeping the scales open, to see what sort of bait tempts what sort of people. On the other hand, there is a great deal to be said for making these scales public as soon as possible. I suppose that there will be advertisements indicating the scales and that there will be no question that these scales will not be available to the House. They ought to be available to the House, but I recognise that there may be some merit, from the point of

view of recruitment, in not specifying them in a scheme when we know so little about the people likely to come forward, or the qualifications demanded.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 11, line 32, at the end to insert:
(b) shall prohibit the appointment of any person as a rent officer or a deputy rent officer who has had less than five years practical experience during the immediately preceding ten years in the valuation of dwelling-houses.
This Amendment goes to the root of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to determine what is a fair rent for a particular property. There are, clearly, two main points to achieving this purpose. The first concerns the definition of a fair rent and the second the machinery for applying that definition to a certain case. The definition of a fair rent is outside the purview of this Amendment and we are considering the administrative machinery for applying that definition to a particular case.
What we are concerned with is that the person who is charged with the duty of applying that definition should be competent to do the job. We offered the Minister a solution during the Committee stage which would have prevented him from piling up a bureaucracy. He rejected that solution, but, as a result of our discussions then, we are moving this Amendment for his consideration. The objective is the same—to provide that the people charged with the job of deciding a fair rent shall be fully able to do that task. In Committee we had some discussion as to what exactly was the job which the rent officer would have to do. There was some variation in the views expressed. Some took the view that his main job would merely be one of conciliation between the two parties to a dispute.
We reject that view of the job. It is quite different from the duties of the rent officer which are laid down in the Bill. Those duties can be found in Schedule 3, and they make it quite clear that they are not merely conciliatory but include the duty of deciding a fair rent, as related to the property. It is not merely his job to solve a dispute between parties. It is to decide what a fair rent is for a particular property, and if we in this House have


done our job properly, the answer to the question, "What is a fair rent?" should be more or less the same, regardless of who is the rent officer and who is the landlord or tenant. To the extent that the answer differs there is a considerable arbitrariness in the Bill, and arbitrariness is the very negation of legislation
It is well known that many people think that there is a considerable element of arbitrariness in the Bill at the moment. This Amendment is designed to reduce that. The Observer of 28th March said:
Honest men, acting with all the skill and knowledge which are available, could give answers based on this formula differing by factors of two or three—one man could easily conclude that a 'fair rent' is £2, and another could equally justifiably conclude that it is £4, or even £6. I can see no 'fairness' in this.
If that view is right we are not providing legislation at all. We are merely providing a method of perpetuating an arbitrary decision. To the extent that the formula is precise it is obviously very important to have people who are competent.
May I first consider exactly the job that the rent officer has to do. It is laid down in Schedule 3 on page 33 of the Bill. His duties are defined as follows in paragraph 8:
After considering, in accordance with the preceding paragraph, what rent ought to be registered or, as the case may be, whether a different rent ought to be registered, the rent officer shall, as the case may require—
(a) determine a fair rent and register it as the rent for the dwelling-house.
That sets out quite clearly that it is to be the fair rent for the dwelling-house.
In Committee we thought that there were two qualifications necessary for rent officers. Hon. Members differed as to the emphasis which they placed on them. One was a knowledge of people and how to deal with them and with disputes. The Minister and his colleagues laid very great emphasis on this conciliation element in the rent officer's duties. In accordance with what he said on Second Reading, it would seem that this duty is still predominant in his mind. He thinks that the retired trade union official or local government officer is the kind of person who should be appointed as a rent officer. These are clearly people he has in mind because he thinks they have a good deal of experience of human nature.
We consider, however, that insufficient attention has been paid to the other

qualification which is required if the rent officer is to carry out his job properly, and that is that he must have some expert knowledge of the valuation of property, because that is the definition of his task as it relates to property and not to people. However worthy may be some of the people whom the Minister has in mind, I doubt very much whether they know a great deal about property as such and the valuation of property.
In order to place a little more emphasis on the valuation aspect, may I turn to another part of the rent officer's duties. This is set out in Schedule 4, which concerns certificates of fair rents. One of the rent officer's jobs is to decide what would be a fair rent for a new property if one were to be erected. A builder, before he erects a block of flats or houses, clearly wants to know whether it will be worth his while and whether he will get sufficient return on his capital. To enable him to calculate that, he must know what rent he would be likely to get for the property. Therefore, he must go to the rent officer before he puts one brick on top of another to see what rent the rent officer would allow him to charge.
To discharge this part of his duties the rent officer clearly must be a skilled valuer, because he must look at plans and he must consider the materials with which the builder proposes to build. A dispute has not arisen between people, so the conciliation factor is absent. There is as yet no property. Therefore, he must have very considerable skill related to the knowledge of dwelling-houses, the building thereof and everything which the valuer would need to know if he were to determine a fair rent for something which was only in the planning stage. We must bear in mind that as a result of what the rent officer says the builder will incur considerable commitments and obligations and many liabilities. It is therefore important that the right answer should be given.
I am sure that, however worthy may be the ex-trade union official or the retired person whom the Minister has in mind as being suitable as rent officers, they would not have the skilled knowledge necessary to do this sort of valuation. They just would not have the capacity to do the job which the Bill places on them. That means one of two


things: either the duties of the rent officers are wrong, or the people appointed to do the job lack the necessary capacity. If the tasks are those which are at present laid down in the Bill, we must make it clear that the rent officer should have enough expert knowledge of valuation if his decisions are to be respected and if the rent assessment committees are not to be inundated with appeals.
I ask the Minister to place a good deal more emphasis on the expert knowledge required by the rent officer. We accept that the sort of person he has in mind could probably do the conciliation. However, we do not accept that that is the limit of what the rent officer has to do. It is only part of what he has to do. Indeed, if he is to bring about conciliation between disputing parties, his efficacy will be decided by whether the parties think that he is competent to do the job, apart from whether he has a knowledge of human nature.
The Amendment would ensure that the rent officer was a skilled valuer. It does not go anything like as far as our previous proposals. It would ensure that the necessary expertise was available and that the rent officer had at least five years' practical experience which he had acquired recently of property valuation. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment very carefully and will accept it or ensure that a similar Amendment is moved and accepted in another place.

Mr. Mitchell: There is very widespread concern about this aspect of the Bill. People who will be affected by it have, naturally, been discussing the Minister's proposals among themselves. We hear comments and a great deal of concern expressed about whether this part of the Bill will work effectively. The Amendment calls for the appointment as rent officer or deputy rent officer of a man who has not
less than five years practical experience during the immediately preceding ten years in the valuation of dwelling-houses.
This seems to me a very fair basis from which the landlord and the tenant can feel some sense of security in entrusting to the rent officer the task which he has to perform.
This matter is important because of the very imprecise nature of the definition of a fair rent in Clause 22. If Clause 22 laid down concise methods by which one should judge a fair rent, it might not be necessary to have highly qualified rent officers. But, unless the Minister is much more generous in accepting Amendments, and since Clause 22 does not lay down these criteria, this is very much a matter of judgment, and that judgment should be a qualified judgment. This is why I support the Amendment. There should be qualified men and women who are in a position to make an assessment and judgment of a fair rent against a yardstick in which those who are affected by it can have confidence.
Either we have efficient, qualified rent assessors, or a tremendous load will be placed on the rent assessment committees. I suggest seriously to the Minister that the district valuer's office is where he can find the men whom he needs. Most of the information needed will be in that office, collated, filed and ready. An administrative machine is there ready to cope with the job and a staff with expert knowledge and fully qualified. It is not necessary to set up an organisation. We merely have slightly to expand something which exists. Much of the information which is wanted would be on hand already filed in the office in the valuation work which had already been done.
6.0 p.m.
Either that will be the position where there is a qualified officer, or there will be merely a kindly fellow who is a resolver of disputes. This would give little confidence to the parties involved in the dispute. He might be a sort of marriage guidance counsellor, which I cannot accept as a safe basis on which to assess rents. Like marriage guidance councils the world over, he would probably say, "It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. We had better split the difference between the two". That is no way to arrive at a fair rent, which is supposed to be the basis of what the rent officer tries to fix.
We were told by the Minister on Second Reading that retired trade union officials would be suitable people to hold this post. By the time we got into Committee, we had advanced somewhat and it was suggested that an ex-Conservative Member of Parliament might make an excellent rent


officer. There might well be a considerable difference in the rent which would he assessed on property by an ex-Conservative Member of Parliament, however qualified in other matters than rent assessment, and a retired trade union official. I should be most amused, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to see your house or that of Mr. Speaker assessed and valued, on the one hand, by an unqualified former Conservative Member of Parliament and, on the other hand, by an unqualified retired trade union official. The difference between the two assessments would be considerable.
In that event, what confidence could people have that a fair rent would be arrived at? Judgment has to be exercised to arrive at a fair rent. What basis of confidence can we have that this will be achieved by the proposals which the Minister has put before us? The retired trade union official would not simply be faced with Mr. Bloggs, who owns two little cottages, and his tenant. He would be faced with the property tycoon who has an immense amount of money at stake on the sort of result which is put up. He would be faced with argument from counsel and solicitors, because page 32 of the Bill states that in the event of a dispute,
the landlord and tenant may each be represented by a person authorised by him in that behalf, whether or not that person is of counsel or a solicitor.
In these circumstances, can one envisage a situation in which the rent officer, a retired trade union official, will be able to stand up to cross-examination by counsel or solicitor? I very much support the Amendment.

Mr. Crossman: This is an important Amendment, and because it has been moved so persuasively by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) I should like to give a careful and considered reply. One assumption which they have in common is that the job of assessing the rent of a house is a job which, according to the Amendment, can be done only by somebody with five years' experience of valuation—that is to say, virtually by a professional valuer, because nobody would be likely to have five years' experience except in some sense working in a firm of valuers. That is the assumption

on which the two speeches in support of the Amendment have been based.
If that assumption were true, the whole notion of the Bill would have to break down, because the number of people with practical experience of that kind is not only severely limited, but they are practically all overworked already. We already know that the quinquennial revaluation will probably have to be postponed because of a shortage of Inland Revenue valuers. The district valuers are also overburdened. The professional valuation people are, therefore, enormously overburdened already, and they are a small professional class. If this assumption were literally true, it would mean that none except fully trained commercial valuers could conceivably do the work in the considerable number of cases all over the country. If that were so then clearly, in a sense it could not be done.
I was asked by the hon. Lady whether I thought that the job of the rent officers was conciliation rather than deciding the rent. I do not think that I have ever suggested that it was. What I said on Second Reading was that I compared their rôle to that of a conciliation officer as distinct from somebody in an arbitration court. I said that just as the rent assessment committee would be the arbitration court, so these people would do the job of a conciliation officer vis-à-vis rents. I did not mean that their job would be conciliation, but that they would be parallel in functions to a conciliation officer in terms of labour problems. Another point on which I agree that it is not a job of conciliation is that rent officers obviously need to know about people, but, above all, they must be competent to make a prudent decision about what the rent should be.
I also agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley when she states that the work of the rent officer should be irrespective of the subjective feelings of the tenant and of the landlord. What has to be obtained is an objective assessment. Everybody to whom I have talked agrees, as the hon. Lady would probably also agree, that however hard one tries to write into the Bill that there must be a consideration of objective elements of housing, basically there will still be a subjective element present in the decision. That is what we mean by wisdom. The hon. Lady wants to get the wisdom and


she thinks that it is to be obtained only from a professional valuer.
In discussing the matter between us, the most reasonable method is to ask ourselves whether anything of this sort has ever been done in the past by people who are non-professional valuers. I said in Committee that two speeches similar to those to which we have just heard were curious when one took into account that for years the job of assessing rents had been done by tribunals. There are in existence furnished rent tribunals which are doing the job of assessing a reasonable rent.
A reasonable rent for furnished accommodation can be a very complicated matter to assess. It also needs to be objective. Furnished lettings and unfurnished premises are not the same, but, nevertheless, one needs to make an objective assessment in each case. The rent officers must be able to make an objective assessment.
When one looks at the composition of our rent tribunals and the rôle of our professional valuers, of whom there are so few, the overwhelming proportion of work of the tribunals is done by people who, I would say, were suitable to work as rent officers or, indeed, in some cases, in rent assessment committees. There would, doubtless, be references to rent officers as amateurs rather than professionals—and certainly they are amateur in the sense that they are not professional valuers or people who are experts in assessing rents, but they do a good job year in and year out.
The rent officers are not instructed by any more precise definition than that of Clause 22. Their job is merely to assess a reasonable rent, a vague phrase. At the beginning, there was difficulty concerning the selection of the right kind of people to do this work on rent tribunals but we now have a fairly good standard and I have heard few complaints about the adequacy of the mixture of lawyers, a few valuers and retired people, even a trade unionist—I do not think that I said "retired trade unionist"—which would include an "official". I thought that I detected a slight note of contempt in the hon. Lady's voice. She takes the view that this job can be done only by professional valuers, but in these

cases they have done the job of making an objective assessment of a proper rent.

Mrs. Thatcher: I made that observation, or I intended to do so, in relation to the separate function of a rent officer, which is to give a certificate for a fair rent for a property not yet in existence.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that the hon. Lady was referring to fixing the rent of existing property. I thought that it was her view that they could not fix a fair rent even when the house was there. The argument was then extended to say that it was more difficult in the case of a house which was not there, and I agree with that. However, I am glad that we agree now. The objection therefore is not that a so-called amateur is incapable of fixing a fair rent for a house which is there and which he can visit. This job can be competently performed by an amateur if we select him wisely.

Mr. Albert Evans: We are discussing the Amendment. It does not restrict the argument in the way that my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Crossman: We have plenty of time in which to discuss this important issue. I think that there will be greater difficulty in the case of a house which is not there, but I think we have agreed that it is probably possible to select people who can learn to do the job. They will learn by practical experience to assess a fair rent. If it were true that only professional people could make a final decision on the matter, all the objections raised by the hon. Lady would apply. She said that the rent assessment committees must contain a high proportion of qualified people. I agree with her, and I have laid it down in my suggestions on rent assessment committees that if there are three members of the committee, one should be a professional valuer, one should be a lawyer, and one should be a layman.
6.15 p.m.
I agree that the work of rent assessment committees is to lay down rules under which the rule of thumb can be worked out by rent officers. I agree, also, that there will be difficulties at the beginning because there will be a large number of appeals. Precedents will have to be established. In London they will be established by a central rent assessment committee. There will probably be considerable variations in the recommendations


and decisions made by rent officers. These will be appealed against, and I think that a month or two will elapse before the rent assessment committees make their key rulings. It will be very important to advertise those rulings. That kind of ruling will, I hope, be decided on by a high proportion of qualified personnel, though even here I should like to see on the rent assessment committee one person who is not a professional, but a layman or laywoman.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What are the chances of—

Mr. Crossman: I am trying to answer a serious point made by the hon. Lady. There will be plenty of opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to intervene later, if he wishes to do so.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is a point on which I can help the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. Unless it is on a point of order, if the right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor of the House does not give way, the hon. Member must not continue to interrupt.

Mr. Crossman: There is one other point which we ought to bear in mind. It is very important that the rent officer should he able to convince people that he is giving a wise judgment. If there have been a number of appeals—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House for the right hon. Gentleman to talk to only one Member? The Minister is talking to the hon. Lady. Should not he be talking to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member means that as a serious point of order. The hon. Lady moved the Amendment. The Minister is dealing with the arguments that she advanced, but he is, in fact, addressing the whole House.

Mr. Crossman: Whatever we do, it is important that the officials and officers of the rent assessment committees should be seen to be impartial as between landlords and tenants. If only professional valuers were appointed, there would be considerable suspicion among a large number of tenants that the judgment given would tend to be, or would be one-sided. Many

tenants would take the view—which, I think, would not be justified—that the professional valuer would favour the landlord at the expense of the tenant. I do not think that he would. I think that the first-class valuer would do an objective job in valuing property, but to convince both landlord and tenant that there is a proper balance in the rent assessment committee we will have to appoint a valuer, a person with legal experience, and a layman. This will enable both the landlord and tenant to feel that their points of view are being properly represented.
It is true that it will be possible for the decision of a rent officer to be appealed against, but it is a decision which can be registered for three years. The hon. Lady is right when she says that this is not conciliation. The rent officer will, in fact be doing a very worth-while job but it is also very important for people to recognise that a balance has been maintained on these rent assessment committees. If we do not get that over, they will be bombarded with endless work.
We have to find the people who will do the job. I have talked to members of rent tribunals about their difficulties and their problems, and about what they have learnt. I have now made an Amendment to the Bill to ensure that personnel of rent tribunals and rent assessment committees are able to intermingle. There is no reason why somebody on a tribunal should not be a rent officer as well. These are not separate functions.
Having studied furnished rent tribunals, I am certain that the kind of work which they do, and the qualifications held by the people who would serve on them, equips them to carry out the kind of work which we have in mind here; and I think that the hon. Lady may have overestimated the need for pure valuation training as a prerequisite to being able to fix rents. She put the case so convincingly that I have tried to answer her as quietly as I could, because this is an issue about which we can rationally disagree.
It is important to persuade county clerks that they must take care to get people of the highest quality to do this work. I thought that the hon. Lady was a little unperceptive when she implied that nobody but a professional valuer had any knowledge of housing problems.


There are many people in local government who know a lot about the structure of houses, and about the problems of housing, even though they are not professional valuers. Knowledge of these problems can be obtained by different kinds of local government experience, for example, and I think that the hon. Lady underestimated that aspect of the matter.
The proposal is impracticable, because there are just not enough valuers, either public or private, to man rent assessment committees as we want them manned and to become rent officers as well. In practice, putting the matter simply, the Amendment really says that it is impossible to recruit rent officers. That is really the point that the hon. Lady is making. She is saying that the rent officer is impossible to recruit because all the valuers will have to go on to the rent assessment committees—and that we may even be short of valuers to man them.
This is the philosophy of defeatism. It is wrong to say that this first stage is impossible, and that nobody except a person with five years' training ought to be doing this job. That is not my view. The considerable success of the furnished rent tribunals provides evidence upon which I base my rather more optimistic attitude.

Mr. Costain: This is the Amendment where practice and theory meet. The Minister has indicated what we all expected, namely, that there will be an extreme shortage of experienced valuers. I agree that these people will not be available in sufficient numbers, and in the circumstances I would have hoped that we could has a training scheme. If private industry were tackling the problem it would realise that the questions which will have to be dealt with by rent tribunals will vary greatly in different parts of the country. This is a vast problem. The success of the Bill depends upon the element of equity. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have given the House some hope that he has some progressive scheme in mind for training people to do this important job.

Mr. Crossman: It is not a question of training, but the hon. Member is right to the extent that instructions will have

to be issued to rent officers. If he was using the word "training" in the rather narrow sense of courses of instruction, that is something which might be very sensible. But the real instructions for rent officers will be the decisions of the rent assessment committees. They will work on the basis of those decisions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My point could have been made by a two-word intervention if the normal conventions of the House had been followed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the right to give way or not to give way. He has already refused to give way to an hon. Member who had more right to intervene than the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I accept your Ruling entirely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but there are the procedures of the House and the conventions of the House. I gather that a sensible arrangement has been made to get the business through at a reasonable hour. Those of us who have been interested in the matter from the start and have attended so as to be able to make our points—as I have, having started life as a professional valuer and having had one object in coming here today, namely, to make use of my experience—thought that the right hon. Gentleman, wanting to get his business through, would sense the atmosphere and give way to enable points to be made quickly. Instead of doing that, the right hon. Gentleman almost resisted even his hon. Friend.
Although the right hon. Gentleman has not displayed it until this minute, I do not think that such arrogance helps. We want this business to go through properly. If the right hon. Gentleman had been writing in a Sunday newspaper he would have been the expert, but on some of these matters the situation is new to him, although it is old to those of us who have experience of it. The shortage of valuers is an important matter, if the object that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is to be achieved effectively.
The right hon. Gentleman said that decisions would depend largely on the key rulings which were made in various areas. Has he satisfied himself that those


key rulings will be the same in various areas? Is he sure that we shall not have differences of the kind which have caused discontent and a feeling of uncertainty in relation to the operations of magistrates' courts in various parts of the country? It is because we do not have sufficient numbers of really professional valuers to enable us to approach the matter objectively and impartially that the sort of difference of view to which I have referred may arise.
I could have got that over in a one-minute intervention, and the right hon. Gentleman could have given his reply. On behalf of other back benchers I hope that for the rest of our discussion the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more forthcoming in speeding things up by enabling us to get our points over without having to take up time in making speeches.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Both from what the right hon. Gentleman said explicitly as to the importance of the Amendment and from the seriousness with which he treated it we gather that he agrees that this is a crucial matter. He also knows that both outside the House and within it this is probably the aspect of the problem which is causing most anxiety, especially among those who are directly affected by the Bill.
Many hon. Members—and I am one—regard this as the basic weakness of the Bill. It seems to us that this proposal breaks the basic rule of administration in applying general principles in the form of individual decisions. Broadly speaking, there are two methods of doing that. One is to give to those who have to make individual decisions a broad discretion, and to appoint, in order to do this, men with the highest professional qualifications.
The other is to lay down very tightly and precisely the limits within which decisions will be made, and to use people of lower status and qualifications for the purpose. The examples which spring to mind are the High Court judges, on the one hand, and the insurance officers, applying the very strict National Insurance code, on the other. The Bill applies the vaguest and most generalised of criteria, and seeks to have them applied to individual cases by people who, whatever their personal merits may be—and I have

no doubt that town clerks will do their best to obtain suitable people—will have no professional qualifications in this sphere or, as far as I can see, any specific qualifications whatever, under the terms of the Bill.
In commenting upon this matter the right hon. Gentleman said a very serious thing, namely, that if we were right and that people with valuation experience were required, the scheme would break down. I believe that that is exactly what will happen, and that it will happen not only because of the breach of the ordinary principle of administration to which I have referred but also because the right hon. Gentleman is creating this difficulty by applying rent control throughout the country, and up to high levels of rateable value, thereby necessitating the appointment of many people.
The right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that to operate a nation-wide scheme—a scheme which applies to all property up to a rateable value of £400 a year in London and £200 outside—more people will be required than there are valuation experts available, but it does not follow that if the right hon. Gentleman is correct about that he has drawn the correct inference from it. If we are right in our conclusion that the scheme is not workable on this basis the right hon. Gentleman could have met the problem by applying his scheme on a more modest scale, which, for other reasons, we have urged in respect of other Clauses.
The right hon. Gentleman could have applied the scheme to properties of modest value in Greater London and the great conurbations in the first place, extending it if the necessity was shown and the means became available. This is the issue between us, and I do not take the consolation that he takes from the experience of the furnished rents tribunals.
To begin with, they cover a great deal less work. They have been in operation now for some years and those appointed to them have now acquired practical experience. They made some very bad decisions in their earlier years. Most of their chairmen were and are men with professional qualifications of one sort and another—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: But not of valuation. I thought that the test here was that


valuation experience was what we needed for rents, not legal experience.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is the test on this. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The distinction between the furnished rent tribunals and what the Minister is proposing here—he is relying on the argument about the furnished rent tribunal—is that at least those chairmen have some professional qualifications. There is no provision here that these people shall have this. The examples which the Minister gave of what he had in mind were not, on the whole, of people who have professional qualifications, the retired trade unionist, and so on.

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that the example I gave of the sanitary inspector was a man with professional experience, as is a public health inspector and a housing manager. They are not, in the narrow sense of the word, "professionals" but they are experienced, more closely than a lawyer necessarily is, in dealing with the problem of furnished dwellings. It is not good enough to tell me that we need people with professional experience. That is not what the Amendment is about. It is about professional experience and the whole point of the Amendment that only if they have this experience will they be competent. That is what I have to answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister has not got the point. He introduced the analogy and said that he comforted himself by the experience of the furnished rent tribunals. I am pointing out that those tribunals, whatever they may be, are different in their personnel from the people whom he proposes to appoint. It is not relevant to that to say that they equally would not qualify under the terms of the Amendment. It is the right hon. Gentleman who is comforting himself with a delusion, that because the furnished rent tribunals have not actually broken down—though they did not do very well to begin with for a number of years—we can proceed with confidence to appoint people with no professional qualifications at all for these jobs under the Bill.

Mr. Albert Evans: Does the right hon. Member appreciate that the decisions made by the furnished rent tribunals are made by lay people? It is true that in many cases there is a chairman with legal experience, but the actual decision upon the case as applied to a house is made by the lay personnel.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand how the system works and the hon. Member has helped me to establish a further point about the distinction between these bodies, which are tribunals, and the new unqualified officers whom the right hon. Gentleman proposes to appoint as rent officers. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This is why the Minister is wrong in taking much comfort from the experience, such as it is, of the furnished rent tribunals.
My hon. Friend stressed, in her most admirable speech, the particular difficulty in the case of the issue of the certificate of fair rent. The right hon. Gentleman inadvertently misunderstood her to suggest that that was the only class of case in which the rent officer might find himself in difficulty. It is not the only case, though I agree that it is perhaps the most extreme example of the impossibility of adequate discharge by people of this kind of these duties. Equally, the determination of the rent of an existing house is a professional job and one of great professional difficulty.
In the next of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, he pointed out that the rent assessment committees, the appellate bodies, would have professional membership. Here, perhaps, the analogy with the rent tribunals becomes a little closer. Has the right hon. Gentleman appreciated, in a system covering the whole country, what will happen if there is a flood of appeals? This system will work only if there is not a flood of appeals, if they are not swamped, if there is not a delay not only in getting to the rent officers but in getting an appeal to the rent assessment committee. No system will work if people will not treat the first body to which they go as one whose decision in general they take and only appeal in the exceptional case. The fears which many of us have as to how the system will work were, if anything, fortified rather than diminished by the 


right hon. Gentleman's reliance on the appeal to these bodies.
Valuation of a house for the purposes of determining a rent is a professional job and what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as "knowledge of houses" is not of itself an adequate qualification for this. One can be very experienced in the construction of houses and in their repair without having any expert knowledge of this highly technical business. That the job of valuation is a professional job and a difficult one is established by another example of an activity which is a good deal closer to this than that of the furnished rent tribunal. That is the valuation by the Inland Revenue for the purposes of assessment for rates. That is a valuation job.
Our experience as Members of Parliament is that the last rating revaluation has given rise to a very large number of complaints. If that be so—the Minister knows as well as any of us that it is—in a system in which trained men are operating as part of a national organisation with the resources and guidance of a national organisation behind them, with a system of appeals if necessary right up to the highest tribunals in the land and we get disparities of value, how much more will we not get them if we have a system administered in the first instance by unqualified amateurs with no central organisation behind them and with no unified system of appeal?
If the House wants a comment on how the question of rating assessment has worked, I suggest that hon. Members study the speeches of the learned Lord

Justices in the Peachey case in the Court of Appeal, a few days ago. This is a clear indication of how difficult this job is even for professional men operating a system with a proper system of appeals.

The Times yesterday had a very powerful and cogent article on this very point. It suggested that this was the fundamental weakness of the Bill. It said that the whole thing was, in this respect, "an act of faith", and added the comment that an act of faith was a very bad basis for administration. So it is. If this be an act of faith, it is applying the construction of the word "faith" which was used by the late Mr. Bernard Shaw:
Believing in what you know is not true.

That is a very profound thought, because if one knows a thing to be true it requires no faith to believe it.

In that sense, the Bill is an act of faith. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a wholly unnecessary risk. He is pledging the reputation of his Department and his own reputation to a scheme which is very likely to fail and which, if it does, will cause confusion and difficulty to a great number of people and which another Government one day will have to clear up. At least we will make clear that we have no responsibility for this when it happens by dividing on the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 170.

Division No. 224.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buxton, Ronald
Emery, Peter


Anstruther-Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Chataway, Christopher
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barlow, Sir John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gammans, Lady


Batsford, Brian
Cole, Norman
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Grant, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biffen, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grieve, Percy


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Box, Donald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Braine, Bernard
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hendry, Forbes


Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.
Higgins, Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)




Hooson, H. E.
Mitchell, David
Shepherd, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Sinclair, Sir George


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Murton, Oscar
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Neave, Airey
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stodart, Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lagden, Godfrey
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page R. Graham (Crosby)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Loveys, Walter H.
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Lubbock, Eric
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Prior, J. M. L.
Whitelaw, William


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


McMaster, Stanley
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marten, Neil
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wise, A. R.


Mathew, Robert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mawby, Ray
Robson Brown, Sir William
Woodnutt, Mark


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith and


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Ian MacArthur.


Miscampbell, Norman
Sharples, Richard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mapp, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grey, Charles
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Beaney, Alan
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Neal, Harold


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Newens, Stan


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Blackburn, F.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H.
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Boston, T. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham. S.)


Boyden, James
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Bradley, Tom
Horner, John
Padley, Walter


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Parker, John


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Popplewell, Ernest


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, George (Goole)
Randall, Harry


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mclnnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Floud, Bernard
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ford, Ben
McLeavy, Frank
Stonehouse, John







Stones, William
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Taverne, Dick
Warbey, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Thornton, Ernest
Weitzman, David



Tinn, James
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William
Mr. John McCann and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 18.—(DEFAULT POWERS OF MINISTER.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 17, after "of" to insert "subsection (1) of".
This Amendment and Amendment No. 30 go together, and deal with a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman).
This part of the Clause deals with the default powers exercised by the Minister against the local authority in relation to the preparation of its scheme. My hon. Friend asked what happened if the clerk failed to carry out his function in the appointment of the rent officer. I said at the time that I believed that the point would be covered by the terms of the Clause, but for the sake of avoidance of any doubt we now propose to put in a new subsection which makes it clear that the same sort of precautions can be taken in the case of a complete breakdown by the clerk refusing to carry out his duty.
I do not think that this is very likely to happen, but it is as well to have the power. It is equally true if the local authority fails to carry out this function. This is a precaution against something which, we hope, will never arise.

Mr. Graham Page: In Amendment No. 30 the Minister takes power to appoint some other person in place of the clerk. What class of person has the Minister in mind to take the place of the clerk?

Mr. MacColl: It is difficult to say until one sees the actual lie of the ball when the situation arises—whether it is a complete breakdown in the whole area, or merely a rather awkward local government officer.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman say that he wants to see the lie of the ball before appointing an outside left or an inside right?

Mr. MacColl: In one case it might be another chief officer of the same authority and in another case it might be someone from a neighbouring authority, according to what the attitude of the local authority was. One does not expect this situation to arise but, if it does, provision of the maximum amount of flexibility is probably the best way of tackling it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 22, at end insert:
(3) If the Minister is of opinion that the clerk to the local authority has failed to carry out any functions conferred on the clerk by a scheme under section 17 of this Act he may (after consultation with the local authority) exercise his power under subsection (6) of that section by making a scheme providing for all or any of the functions otherwise exercisable by the clerk to be exercised by some other person.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 19.—(REGISTRATION AREAS AND RENT OFFICERS IN SCOTLAND.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 13, line 10, after "1937" to insert:
and of any local Act scheme within the meaning of that Act".
This Amendment is necessary because Glasgow and Edinburgh operate superannuation schemes under the provisions of local Acts. The Amendment will ensure that when a member of either of these schemes is employed as a rent officer his superannuation can continue under the local Act concerned.

Mr. Hendry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the Amendment which, I confess, puzzled me more than somewhat. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 13, line 15, to leave out "For each registration area".
This Amendment deals with another problem that arose in the Standing Committee, where there was a good deal of


criticism of the flexibility the Clause allowed for panels to cover more than one registration area. As a result, it was suggested by, I think, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), that if we were to remove these words from Clause 20 and leave Schedule 2, as it finally is, the main operating part of the Bill, matters would, in this respect, be a little less confusing than the present draft.
I would only add that since then a rather more flexible system of dealing with panels and rent assessment committees has been allowed in an Amendment to Schedule 2, but perhaps that could be better discussed when we come to that Schedule.

Mr. Allason: I sympathise with the intention behind the Amendment, but we are still left with subsection (6) of Clause 19, which seems to bear very closely on it. I suggested in Committee that those words would help us out of the difficulty that had arisen but, unfortunately, under Clause 45(3) it is restricted to Scotland. It appears that it is now no longer intentionally restricted to Scotland, so I would suggest that at another stage subsection (6) of Clause 19 might go into Clause 20 or, alternatively, be struck out altogether. At the moment, it is hanging out on a limb, as it were, as a result of this Amendment.

Mr. Cole: I wonder whether we could not with efficiency and convenience either put the remaining words into the previous Clause but one or somewhere else? I am still in a fog, because when I refer to Schedule 2, mentioned in this Clause, I find that paragraph 2 speaks of
… a panel for each registration area …
We therefore seem to have come full circle back to the same point. With all respect, I am not sure where we shall finish up.
If we bear in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about grouping of registration areas, where are we? A little more thought is required here. Perhaps the Government might be inclined to clarify the situation in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 14, line 1, to leave out subsections (1) and (2) and to insert:
(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house the following provisions shall apply, namely, that a fair rent shall be—

(a) the rent agreed by the tenant and the landlord to be payable;
(b) where paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply, if the dwelling-house was or will be first occupied as a dwelling-house subsequent to 31st December 1960, 10 per cent. of the estimated cost of the provision of the said dwelling-house (including the cost of the freehold estate in the land on which the dwelling-house is erected and of reasonable garden land thereto) and in estimating that cost regard shall be had to such evidence as the landlord can adduce relating to the actual cost thereof;
(c) where paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection do not apply, 9 per cent. of the price at which the District Valuer certifies that he would reasonably expect the dwelling-house to sell to an acquiring authority with powers of compulsory purchase thereof except the power to acquire the dwelling-house at site value:

Provided always that the figure ascertained in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection may be adjusted in order to arrive at a fair rent by taking into account the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling-houses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been informed by the Opposition that they would suggest that with Amendment No. 40 we should take Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42; Amendment No. 43, in page 14, line 5, leave out "age"; Amendment No. 44, in page 14, line 5, after "character" insert "rateable value"; and Amendment No. 45, in page line, line 6, at end insert:
and to the amenities of the dwelling-house and of the locality".
These Amendments can be taken together if the House as a whole has no objection.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: We come now to the Clause in the Bill which is the direction to the rent officer and rent assessment committees as to matters which they shall take into account in determining a fair rent. This is an important Clause, but as it stands at the moment this is left


very much to guesswork and not even to estimation or evaluation by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee. This Amendment is a twofold effort, first, to bring more precision to the definition of a fair rent, and, secondly, to see that the fair rent does not deter those who otherwise would be willing to supply houses and flats to let.
In the Clause as it stands, in subsection (1) rent officers and rent assessment committess are directed to take into account all the circumstances and, in particular,
to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house and to its state of repair".
That is the first job, to look at all the circumstances. It does not indicate to them what they should do when they have looked at all the circumstances and how they should value them. They are left with the assumption to make in subsection (2)
that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) a the regulated tenancy is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.
That is an extremely difficult assumption, certainly for a layman, as the rent officer will be, to make in assessing the rent of a property.
Under the Bill as it stands the rent officer would determine the rent by guesswork and would be little guided by any facts on valuation. The leader in The Times of 29th June has already been mentioned. I quote one paragraph which is very much in point on the argument I wish to put before the House on this Amendment. The leader writer says:
The two points at which the legislation is in danger of breaking down are the definition of 'fair rent' and the administrative machinery for arriving at it. Fair rent is defined without reference to any actual or ascertainable rental or value. This weightlessness of the concept might be excusable if it did not also contain a logical absurdity: it must be assumed for the purpose of fixing a fair rent that the number of people seeking dwellings of the kind in the locality is not substantially greater than the number of such dwellings available for letting. But an indispensable term in these supply-and-demand equations is the price. No meaning attaches to any assumption that the supply and demand of housing are in balance which ignores the price at which the balance is struck.
Faced with an uninterpretable brief, the officials and tribunals responsible for fixing fair rents will be forced to exercise a wise discretion.

In this Amendment I have endeavoured to set out three broad factors which should have the attention of the rent officer and the rent assessment committees. They are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) They are, first, an agreement as to rent between the parties, secondly, if that does not apply and it is a new building or a comparatively new building, the cost of providing that building, and, if that does not apply—if we are dealing with an older building—then the cost of that building; in other words, as I have expressed it in the Amendment, the compulsory purchase price if it were subject to compulsory purchase.
There is the proviso as a safety valve which deals with the point to which the rent officer is bidden to give attention by the Clause as it stands in the Bill—
the age, character and locality"—
and so on. They come in only as a safety valve. Subject to that, surely the first thing we should say when estimating a fair rent is, what do the parties agree between themselves? If the parties agree on a rent, why should we appoint a rent officer to be a sort of busybody between the parties, increase the work of the rent officer and thereafter of the rent assessment committees, by making them act in a sort of grandmotherly position to the parties?
Why should they say, "No matter what you have agreed as rent between yourselves we do not think it is a proper rent. No tenant should pay this rent and no landlord should receive it. Therefore, we shall register some different rent altogether"? If we set aside that sort of rule, which would apply if the Bill remained as it is, we would say that the rent agreed between the tenant and the landlord shall be the rent recoverable which would remain as the registered rent for a period of three years subject to the proviso which appears in the Schedule on page 32, on the ground that the circumstances have changed. Then a new rent could be registered.
If the parties are unable to reach agreement, my proposal in the Amendment is that the rent should be based on a capital value, a calculation of rent from the cost of providing the house or flat to let. Here I come to the second purpose of the Amendment, that the fixing of fair rents under the Bill should


not be done in a manner which would deter those who would be willing to supply houses and flats to let. We have already seen an example in the newspapers in the last day or two of a large developing company being frightened by this Clause, frightened that it might have the effect of so reducing the company's returns from its property that it would not be worth while providing houses and flats in future.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am interested that the hon. Member should make that point, because many of us think that a stage has been reached in the exploitation of property at which many development companies need scaring by action in this House.

Mr. Graham Page: If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps he would like to make a speech on that point and name the companies to which he refers.
The figures I have put in this Amendment suggest a reasonable return from investment in property. The Milner Holland Report proved, if it proved anything, that it is absolutely necessary if we are to solve the housing problem to have the assistance of the private developer and private holder of property to let. It is quite impossible to throw the whole burden on to local authorities or new town corporations for the housing of the people who wish to live in houses which they can rent. We shall never succeed in providing those houses unless we can attract the private developer into holding property to let to a far greater extent than he does at present.
Paragraph (b) of the Amendment deals with dwelling-houses which have been provided in the last five years. This was intended to apply to new buildings providing homes and to judge what would be the proper return from those, to calculate the cost of providing them in cases where if they were built in the last five years there is probably still good evidence of the actual cost of the provision of the building, and to say that the owner should be entitled to a 10 per cent. return on his money. It is arguable whether a margin either side of 10 per cent. is needed. I should have thought that 10 per cent. is not only a fair return for someone who builds property and

provides it for letting in this way. Tenants would also regard it as a fair basis for rent.
Paragraph (c) deals with properties which are more than five years old. No doubt the evidence of the cost of providing the buildings is no longer available and, therefore, some estimate must be made. I suggest that the basis on which the capital value should be estimated should be the same basis as that on which a district valuer estimates the value for the purpose of compulsory purchase, assuming that it is not one of those cases where the property can be acquired at site value. The district valuer is an experienced person who can estimate the capital value of the dwelling. I have put the figure of 9 per cent. return on that.
It is arguable that the man who provides an older house to let is entitled to a greater return on his money than the man who provides a new house, because the maintenance costs in the first case will be greater. I have deliberately put it at 10 per cent. for the new house and 9 per cent. for the old house to encourage developers to come into the business again and provide new houses to let.
This may be an inelegant Amendment, but it is an effort to provide some facts on which the rent officer can base his estimate. Without this, one can only be very anxious about how the different rent officers and different rent committees will interpret the Clause. Unless there is some basis of fact of this kind on which they can work, there will be a variety of decisions throughout the country.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that the Minister will treat this Amendment sympathetically. It would help in the implementation of the Measure. I am even more convinced that he should treat it sympathetically having heard his speech on a previous Clause. It may be that no guarantee can be given that there will be official valuers. If the matter is to be left to some extent to laymen, although they may have a good knowledge of property and property valuation, they should be given more specific instructions as to how to arrive at the value than appear in the Clause as it stands. Unless they are given more specific instructions, there will be so many anomalies that the system will break down, because of the disruption and ill feeling that will be bred.
I am not satisfied that the figures mentioned in the Amendment are necessarily right. I am satisfied that the main aim of having something more specific to guide rent officers and rent assessment committees is absolutely right. As I tried to make clear in an earlier intervention which was not taken too kindly, it is important that there should be a nation-wide relationship between the values arrived at. If some committees are to have the benefit of professional advisers whereas other committees will have experienced, though not professional, people on them, different values will be set and chaos will be created.
I would support the Amendment, but I hope that, if it is acceptable to the Government, the Minister will give a little more thought to the figures. If a landlord and a tenant can mutually agree as to what is right, that should be accepted over and above everything else, particularly as a tenant would agree in the knowledge that he had the protection of the Measure behind him. If it is mutually agreed it should be accepted.
7.15 p.m.
As to new houses, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is absolutely right. I have some knowledge of the building industry and the property industry generally. It has provided many houses for letting over the last 50 years, but it has now reached a stage where it has no confidence in investing in property to let. If the needs of the house hungry are to be met, the central Government, local authorities and private developers must work together. If the private developer is to make his contribution to providing houses to let at a rent which is fair, before he starts on his development he must know what return he can expect. Not only does he want to know this for business reasons. Usually, he must get finance; he must go to a bank or a finance house. Before they will consider lending him money to get on with the development, he must establish that the investment will result in a return which will enable him to pay the interest and repay the loan.
If it was not possible to know what rent could be obtained, which is what would happen under the Clause as it stands, so that it would not be possible to tell what return would result from

the investment, there would be no ground for submitting the scheme to a bank or to a finance house. Thus the development could not even be considered, much less started.
Ten per cent. is the figure put into the Amendment. This is what is considered to be the fair return on property such as offices and some types of shops, where there is not the expense of internal fittings and plumbing which is applicable in the case of houses. Ten per cent. is generally acceptable in the case of offices and shops, where there is a good floor space and the certainty of stronger tenants. I doubt whether 10 per cent. is a sufficient return in the case of private lettings to ordinary individuals, because the cost of extra plumbing, repairs and maintenance is much higher. Although I would accept 10 per cent. if it were acceptable to the Treasury Bench in place of the Clause as it stands, I do not think that the figure is generous.
Nor do I altogether accept a 9 per cent. return on older houses. It would not be fair to say that it would have to be on the basis of the district valuer's report on a compulsory purchase basis and then be 9 per cent. If the valuation put on older property was the market value in the area, I think that 10 per cent., the same as that applicable in the case of new houses, would be fairer.
I said two minutes ago in a rather presumptuous way that I claimed to have some knowledge over a good number of years of things connected with property and letting. I assure the Minister that, in terms of implementing what I think he has in mind, he would be doing the job very much better and would be more likely to get the desired results if he gave more precise instructions than appear in the Bill at present. I do not mind whether he chose the figures named in the Amendment or other figures which appear to him and his advisers to be more appropriate.
I beg the Minister to amend the Bill to make it more precise than it stands at present.

Sir Barnett Janner: I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been advanced in support of the Amendment. I appreciate the purpose of the Amendment, but


I do not think that it complies with what it is desired to do. The idea of an agreement between a landlord and a tenant has been very carefully examined for many years. The purpose of the Rent Acts was to avoid any injustice that might arise from an agreement between a landlord and a tenant where the tenant, in consequence of the plight, in which he found himself, was unable to avoid entering into an agreement to pay an exorbitant rent.
That has been the case since 1915, and the trouble is that members of the Opposition party have still not awakened to the fact that advantage has been taken of tenants who have been induced or compelled to sign agreements which afterwards they have had to go to a court to alter.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the difference between a tenant entering into an agreement to pay a rent when there is no statutory protection to fall back on, and entering into an agreement with the owner of a property knowing that if an exorbitant price is put on it he has the statutory protection to fall back upon?

Sir B. Janner: The Amendment says in subsection (1,a):
(1) In determining for the purposes of this Act what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house the following provisions shall apply, namely, that a fair rent shall be—
(a) the rent agreed by the tenant and the landlord to be payable".
I do not understand the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. It means that if a tenant and a landlord agree to a rent, that shall be the rent. That is sheer nonsense, because for years we have recognised that to be the position. In spite of all the attacks of the Conservative Party attempting to destroy the Rent Acts, which they almost effectively did by the 1957 Act, the fact remains that landlords took advantage of tenants, and that is why the original Act said:
Any agreement to the contrary not withstanding, the following provisions shall apply …
As a result, people were protected from exorbitant rentals in that they had an opportunity, even if they had agreed that a rent should be paid, to go to the courts and tribunals to have it decided whether

or not that was a wrong rent in the circumstances.
That has been at the back of the whole of the rent legislation for years, and it is because the Opposition have never wanted to protect a tenant by virtue of these Acts that they have sought every possible opportunity of wrecking them. That is why we now have to come with a new Act, the Rent Act of 1957 having done such terrible damage.
I would like the House to realise that we were told at the time of the 1957 Act that it was no longer necessary to have protection because the market was open and there were plenty of houses. As a result, the controls were removed. But what is the true position? It is that there are not plenty of houses and people have to agree to pay higher rents, and rely upon the remnants of the Rent Acts to protect them against exorbitant rents.
The first subsection of the Amendment strikes at the whole intention and is dead against what the country wants and what the country knows to be absolutely essential for the protection of tenants because of the scarcity of accommodation. We say on this side that a rental should be fixed at such a level as will not take into consideration the scarcity of housing. That is the only method by which you can arrive at a rent which is a reasonable and proper rental; otherwise, rents can soar to any height.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about rents being fixed at a certain level, but what is to happen in an area where accommodation is really needed if people are compelled to pay enormous prices for sites, entirely out of reason? Will the hon. Gentleman or his party protect the country against that kind of exorbitant price? What does he intend to do about it? How will he fit in the needs of the people with his outlook and that of his party in respect of the continually rising price of land?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is suggesting an Amendment which calculates the actual building cost and then adds 10 per cent.

Sir B. Janner: He is not saying that at all. The cost of the site has to be taken into consideration as well. I see no reason why we should not come to the conclusion that it is proper and reasonable


to charge a person a rent which is consistent with what would be chargeable if there were not a shortage existing in certain areas. When a person buys or erects a property, he should be able to take that into consideration.
I appeal to the House to understand that the trouble is that there is not sufficient accommodation. People are being charged exorbitant prices, and one cannot depend upon an agreement between a landlord and a tenant in that respect.
I was amazed to hear the kind of argument about the result of setting up tribunals for furnished lettings. The impression which has been given to the House is quite wrong. I use it in this particular context because here will be a question where tribunals will have a say in the matter. The fact is that the tribunals which were set up did not in the vast majority of cases comprise professional people. Very many of them were laymen, and they did their job because they themselves knew values in their own areas and consequently did not have to depend entirely on professional people, though obviously some professional people were there and were resorted to in certain cases that came before the tribunal. However, these tribunals which are to be set up for the purpose of dealing with the question of fair rents, whether they be individual rent officers or appeal tribunals, will be able to deal with the matter and satisfy people that at least their case is being attended to and that they are not being put to an exorbitant charge.
In these circumstances, I consider that the proposed Amendment is not necessary, in view of the Clause as it stands.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 44 which the Chair kindly allowed to be discussed with this one. I hope that the Minister may sympathetically consider the suggestion in it that among the items to be taken into consideration by the rent officer shall be the rateable value. We have a situation in which there are unqualified rent officers who are being asked to disregard the only criterion arrived at by a qualified valuer, namely the rateable value. On Second Reading the Minister was at great pains to say that he had considered carefully fixing a rent related to the rateable

value but had rejected it because in many cases the rateable value was perhaps not fairly fixed.
This does not seem to me to be a reason for disregarding this one qualified criterion entirely. It seems to me that where errors have been found in the fixing of rateable values this is an opportunity for altering them as a result of review. I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether or not, without attaching a fixed relationship to rateable value, it would be right that rateable value should be among the things considered by the rent officer.

Mr. Crossman: The House will not expect a long and detailed speech at this stage in our proceedings, because a good many of us have discussed this matter for many hours already and the basic principles have been argued out thoroughly among us. Perhaps I might say a word or two first about my own Amendment. At the request of hon. Members on both sides of the House I have decided to insert words to make clear that the personal circumstances of the tenant and the landlord are not to be considered. I think that my wording is better than the wording of Amendment No. 42 which has exactly the same purpose. I think that ours is slightly superior.
I appreciate very much the courtesy of hon. Members who have not spoken to their Amendments, assuming that I understand them, and I hope to treat each Amendment fairly on its merits. I start first with Amendment No. 40 because it is a response to a challenge which I made in Committee. I said then that we had not had from the Opposition what they felt was the real alternative to Clause 22. I shall not criticise the Amendment on legalistic grounds. In opposition one is not always in a position to draft Amendments satisfactorily. I will take the substance of the Amendment assuming that if need be it could then be taken by the Parliamentary draftsmen and processed.
It is extremely valuable to have this Amendment on record, because it makes perfectly clear the profound division between the two sides of the House on the nature of rent regulation. I laid it down that the kind of definition of a fair rent which I wanted must not, on the one side, be a rigid formula—I will


come to rateable value later—as in the 1957 Rent Act and on the other side it must explicitly prevent rents being fixed in terms of scarcity prices.
In a sense Amendment No. 40 deliberately and consciously violates my principle. Once the formula of 10 per cent. and 9 per cent. is brought in, however one works it, it has the grave disadvantage that far from eliminating scarcity it ensures that rents will be fixed in relation to scarcity prices. Rents will rise with prices. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for pointing this out. I need not go over his argument. It is a legitimate view to hold that one must be allowed a sound return on one's investment, and it is claimed that the best way of calculating the rent is to calculate what the man who invests his money can fairly expect from it. But if one allows that to happen in a place of scarcity value the Amendment means that if a man has invested in land far beyond its value, right at the top of the market, then he is to be allowed a percentage and the rent is to be related directly to scarcity.
The point of Clause 22, as we have defined it, is to forbid assessment committees to relate rent to scarcity in this way. Therefore, we have in these two instances a perfectly clear-cut distinction between the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition are convinced, in terms of sound business, that it is only reasonable that where property has been acquired and built in scarcity circumstances the landlord should have a fair return on his money. I do not say for a moment that if this were implemented it might not well make private building of rented houses a profitable investment once again, but it would be at the cost of permitting rents to rise to levels where it would be ridiculous to talk of rent regulation.
I turn now to Amendment No. 43 which asks me to eliminate the word "age" from the Clause for all the reasons given by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). On balance, I will not do it. The Clause has been drafted extremely carefully, and although I cannot give the hon. Lady a specific reason why it makes a tremendous difference to keep the word in, I do not think that it is worth taking it

out and I wonder whether she really felt strongly about it.
I come now to Amendment No. 45 and the word "amenities". This is an Amendment which I considered carefully as I promised. I am perfectly clear that "locality" adequately covers all the meanings of "amenities" which a professional valuer or lawyer would need to have in his mind, and by adding the word "amenities" one merely points out how many other words could have been added. I prefer to rely on my professional legal advisers who tell me that there is no doubt that any professional valuer or lawyer or any member of a rent assessment committee reading Clause 22 will know that what is meant by "amenities" must be considered by anybody in assessing a fair rent for the house.
I now come to Amendment No. 44. I was a little disappointed with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) because either I talked very obscurely in Committee or he rather wilfully misunderstood me.

Mr. Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Crossman: I must have said two or three times in Committee that there was no question of disregarding rateable value and that every sensible rent assessment committee and rent officer will normally regard rateable value as one of the obvious yardsticks by which to measure the fair rent of the house.

Mr. Mitchell: I am puzzled. The right hon. Gentleman specifies the things which are to be taken into consideration and therefore one naturally assumes that the things which are not listed are not taken into consideration.

Mr. Crossman: I apologise to others for the odious repetition of what I have said on three occasions in Committee. The issue is not whether rateable value should be taken into account. I would reply to the hon. Member that rateable value, in one sense, is a numerical reflection of the objective factors listed in this Clause. Rateable value is the money value we give to the size, character and objective facts of a house and property. Rateable value is a way of assessing or calculating in money or poundage terms the objective facts.
Therefore, when I say that someone must study the objective factors listed in subsection (1), it is perfectly clear that one of the factors which he will study is, so to speak, what the valuation officer's estimate was of all those objective factors which he is set to take in to account. I explained to the Committee at some length why, although, of course, it is true that any sensible rent assessment committee or rent officer will normally take rateable value into account and will be expected to do so, I had nevertheless decided not to write a reference to rateable value into the Bill.
There are a great many other factors which one could have written into the Bill. There is a particular difficulty in writing rateable value into the Bill which comes from the fact—this was what Milner Holland discovered about London—that in a really large minority of cases the rateable value is a positively misleading factor in relation to a house. Unfortunately, under the new valuations, it is reckoned that in some areas more than a quarter of the rateable values are unfair. One of the strange facts is that, though they are unfair, not all people have appealed against them. No doubt, some people may be studying our debates, and I sometimes wonder whether we shall stimulate an increasing number of appeals. But what I state is a fact.
I have read the Milner Holland Report, the special study of London, and there is little doubt that in a large number of cases, a substantial minority of cases, one can find the same rateable values for houses which are not, in fact, identical. For example, two houses in a street may look identical from the outside, but one has a bathroom and one does not. The valuer has stood at the end of the street and said to himself, "They all look roughly the same. I shall block them together". No one criticises the valuers for doing this. They had to prepare 14 million valuations quickly for the purpose of rating assessment. They did not, therefore, go into each house. They did not do what our rent officers will have to do in each case, that is, go in and study the actual structure and specific detail of the house. They could not make what I call an individual assessment of a house because they did not have time. They could not possibly have done so and kept

up with the job of providing a basis for local taxation.
As a result, there are differences, although the situation varies from district to district. Broadly speaking, in the Provinces rateable value is a far more reliable test than it is in parts of London, although even in the provinces there is a good deal of variation. I am told that in Birmingham up to 80 per cent. of houses, roughly speaking, can be said to have a good rough and ready relationship between rateable value and actual rentable value. But it nevertheless remains true that in 20, 25 or 30 per cent. of the cases it is unfair.
If we write rateable value into the Clause, the danger is that, if it is disregarded, it can then become a cause of legal action, and my legal advisers assured me that the one thing we did not want to do was write something into the Clause in such a way that the person who has the money, that is, on the whole, the landlord, and who can pay for legal advice would be able to make a legal case for appealing against the decision of the rent assessment committee. I think that we all agreed that the rent assessment committee should be the final court of appeal on the rent, that is, apart from any legal issues. We can never stop someone appealing on a strictly legal issue. What we want to avoid is making what should be an issue of substance, that is, rateable value, a legalistic issue or an issue which transforms the rent assessment into a forensic argument in the courts.
I spelt this out at some length, and I am sorry to repeat it again. It is of crucial importance that it be understood, and understood widely outside, that in not writing rateable value in here one is not implying or suggesting that it should not normally be taken into consideration. But, after it has been taken into consideration, a rent officer or rent assessment committee will be perfectly entitled, having considered it, to say, "This is one of those instances where rateable value does not work as a yardstick and it should be disregarded". It is safer to enable them to do that, surely, than to write into the Bill an instruction that it must be taken into account.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman made the point


about litigation in Committee, and I asked him then how the phrase "all the circumstances" could not be used by a litigant who might say, "As this phrase is included in the Clause and the rent assessment committee has not taken rateable value into account, that is the ground for action".

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I took that to my legal advisers, and they simply told me that they did not think it likely that it would be a substantial ground for taking action under the Clause. One of the difficulties for a layman in this kind of phraseology is that it is most important that one should use every word in terms of our rent legislation, using words in the sense and with the specific meaning to which people have been accustomed during the past 30 years. Broadly speaking, this Clause as drafted is a kind of traditional Clause in the sense that each word is carefully used in the regular traditional legal sense which those who have interpreted our rent Acts over 30 years understand to have specific meaning.
For these reasons, we have decided to leave out any reference to rateable value. As I say, this does not mean that normally speaking, it should not be considered.

Mr. Cole: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises what he is saying, that the structure of the system will be such that rent assessment committees and rent officers will set up a new rating system and pattern which may well be used in other circumstances for valuation purposes.

Mr. Crossman: They will not set up a rating system. They certainly will set up a system of rents, and in some cases the rents may be strangely out of relation with any normal numerical or mathematical link with gross value for rating. Broadly speaking, there ought to be such a relationship. It would have been far more convenient to be able to find a mathematical relationship between gross value and rent. We could have dispensed with the whole machinery of tribunals in that case. I should have preferred to do that, but it struck me very much in Committee that, as we came through this, all hon. Members, apart from one or two of

my hon. Friends who are not here today—and even they were a bit shaken by the evidence, I think—grew increasingly to feel that, although rateable value should be taken into account, a simple link to, say, once gross value or 1.3 times gross value would not be a satisfactory solution. I got the impression that there was really no one in the end, except, perhaps, one or two of my hon. Friends, who did not come to that view.
Once we give up the simple link, there is something to be said for the view that the Clause should be made as concise as possible. I know that right hon. Gentlemen opposite like to say that it is a vague Clause, but it is not all that vague. The opposition to the Clause is that it is extremely precise in certain respects. One can see how precise it is by comparing it with the alternative now put before us. The Opposition's alternative would permit the putting up of rents to scarcity levels. Our Clause forbids the valuer to consider scarcity prices.
I come now to the last point. How can this injunction be carried out? No doubt, I should be asked that by a valuer. My reply is that the Clause was worked out for my by Mr. Pilcher, who is, I think, a past-president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and who was a member of the Milner Holland Committee. He was largely personally responsible for this Clause, so that there is at least one valuer who thinks that it makes sense. I was deeply impressed by the fact that he believes that this is the best Clause that we can frame.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman is making the point that a valuer could work Clause 22. Our argument is that, if it has to be worked by people who are not valuers, they will have great difficulty. Mr. Pilcher is a valuer and he can do it, but that is not the point.

Mr. Crossman: That is a new advance. It is not quite the argument we have had on the Clause before, and it is not what the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench would say about it. There are different arguments, of course.
There will be disagreements about it. There are those who think that we must keep it flexible and leave it to the tribunal, having given the instruction,


"Value objectively; disregard scarcity, but look at everything else". I am convinced that we need clear-cut decisions, with expert opinion on the panels which make them.
I repeat that the decisions of the Rent Assessment Committees will create the precedents for all future fixing of rents. If, as I expect, the London Rent Assessment Committee is the first to be created and is running for some time before the others get going, then its big decisions will be of the greatest importance in setting the tone for all future decisions afterwards.
It is my conviction that the form of words we have chosen here is the most precise that we need and that everyone who is an expert will know what is needed. These people will know very well what scarcity is and what the difference is between the price one pays for a house in a non-scarcity area and the price one pays for an identical house in a scarcity area. They can tell the difference because they are professionals. Therefore, there is little doubt that the Clause is understandable.
I do not deny that the Clause is radical. It forbids rents to be fixed at scarcity level. It may well lay down, in certain instances, that a rent must be reduced to a point where there is no return on the money if the landlord obtained the house at an inflated price—which I do not think he has any right to do—and where he will simply lose money at that level.
If we are to regulate rents to protect tenants from exploitation, we must be prepared to accept that, in certain circumstances, this may mean forcing a man who has bought at the top of the market to accept a loss on the rent of the house. There is no concealment of it. That is what the second part of the Clause may imply in certain cases, just as it might, as I had to tell my hon. Friends last night, mean that people who have been controlled tenants for some time must accept increases in rents more than they like.
Fixing rents must mean that some people will get less and that others will have to pay more than they like. No system will escape that. I ask the House to judge the Clause by the test I put. Apparently we all assume that there is

no simple mathematical relationship. Once that is accepted and we have some system of tribunals then subjective personal judgment has to come into it. We have to have people to do the job of setting the rents fairly. Assuming that we can get good and intelligent people on these committees, we must ask ourselves what kind of framework they should have in which they can work without being embarrassed or having their work made difficult by being overloaded with things that may bring legal trouble in the courts.
By that judgment, I believe that our formula has passed some very severe tests. We were told in The Times, rather abruptly, that we were sometimes silly or idiotic and that all we wanted was a simple definition. I waited some weeks for The Times to give a simple definition. It is very good at writing leading articles but it has never put a sentence in to suggest what it says should be so easy to do—which is to write a better definition than this one.
I am glad that I have enticed out of the Opposition the facts of their proposal. They are really telling the country what the difference is between the Opposition and the Government about fixing rents. The Opposition believe that rents should go high in scarcity periods and be linked to scarcity. The Amendment refers to
… ten per cent. of the estimated cost of the provision of the said dwelling-house …".
They therefore want to link rents to a fair return on his money to a landlord who may have bought at the top of the market. That would mean linking rents to scarcity levels in certain cases.

Mr. Graham Page: Scarcity value can only apply in that case to land, which is about one-seventh of the value of the house.

Mr. Crossman: We are talking a little provincially if we talk about a land value of one-seventh. It is not so in London but there is scarcity value there, as there is elsewhere, of course.
I want to respond to the brevity of the Opposition on this issue. This is a tremendous issue. It is the issue of the rôle of rent officers and how we define fair rent. It is tremendous in the sense that, if we are right, we shall have made


a tremendous break-through and we shall be able to break down, I hope, the bad relationships between landlord and tenant and provide what we have all been waiting for—a genuine sense that fair rents can be achieved.
If the Opposition are right, they will know in a few months because they prophesy certain disaster and "schemozzle". We shall all be able to know in a few weeks whether the method we have chosen is right. The longer I have listened to the discussion the more convinced I have become that we have found the correct formula and also that we shall find that, on the basis of that formula, those concerned will be able to fix fair rents.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The House will not think me discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman and will be somewhat relieved if I do not reply to him at equal length. That is not because I disagree with him about the importance of the matter raised by this series of Amendments, for it amounts, in substance although not strictly in form, to the total issue of the Clause itself.
The Amendments are, of course, fundamental to the Bill. As The Times leading article, which has been quoted twice today, made clear, this is one of the two major issues on the workability of the Bill. I would say, in passing, that, to my knowledge, I have never used the word "schemozzle" as an indication of what might happen. No doubt that is a Wykehamist expression which would not be for me to use.
If I do not, however, reply at equal length, it is for the reason that we have made clear our views again and again on the issue raised by the Clause and I doubt very much whether much useful purpose will be served by restating it. But I will quickly refer to one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am glad that he has put down Amendment No. 41. He will recall that I raised on Second Reading the issue whether the term "all the circumstances" in the Clause included the personal circumstances of either landlord or tenant. The Secretary of State for Scotland, whose absence we regret and fully understand, misunderstood me and thought I

was urging that personal circumstances should be taken into account. I made it clear that this was not so. I was extremely doubtful as a matter of construction whether a court, tribunal or rent officer might not take the view that "all the circumstances" did include the circumstances of the landlord and tenant. I am glad, from the point of view of obtaining proper certainty of drafting, that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to prevent such doubt arising by Amendment No. 41, which we welcome.
On the main issue raised by our own Amendments, it is unnecessary, as I have said, to restate our position. It is clear and on record. We feel that, particularly since the Clause is to be interpreted in the first instance by people without professional qualifications, it is too imprecise and lacks any firm guiding light or yardstick.
The purpose of Amendment No. 40 is to provide some firm basis for the calculations which the rent officers and rent assessment committees will have to make. It does not seek to give them something which they must apply automatically and without taking account of the other relevant factors because, as I do not think has yet been mentioned, the proviso says:
Provided always that the figure ascertained in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this subsection may be adjusted in order to arrive at a fair rent by taking into account the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling-houses.
There is, therefore, some exercise of discretion, but it is an exercise of discretion which is based upon views formed on certain firm criteria. This seems to be a better and more effective basis for these difficult decisions than is the Clause.
8.0 p.m.
I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the parentage of the Clause. Perhaps it was an unusual disclosure for a Minister to make. The answer is that though that distinguished valuer may have produced a Clause which any other distinguished valuer might have no difficulty in applying, it is probably particularly difficult for a distinguished valuer to present a Clause which people less professionally instructed would find easy to apply. The mysteries of one profession are not necessarily very clear to those not acquainted with those mysteries.

Mr. Crossman: It was no doubt owing to tiredness as a result of so much debate yesterday, but I should not have said that he drafted the Clause. He put forward the idea of the Clause, of leaving scarcity out, but, of course, he did not do the drafting. I must say that I borrowed the whole concept of the Clause from him.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is a concept which The Times once described as an economist's concept, but a lawyer's nightmare.
I will be very brief in my comments on the criticisms of our subsection. The right hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time saying that it would introduce scarcity. There is some truth in what he said about paragraph (b), but applicable only to the land and not to the construction of the house. There is some truth in respect of paragraph (c), because to some extent the district valuer would have to take that into account in deciding what the compulsory purchase price would be. However, it is our common experience that district valuers are apt to take a somewhat restricted view of this aspect of the price.
Almost unwittingly, the right hon. Gentleman brought out one of the big issues which lie between us. He did not think that it was necessary to give to those who provide new houses to rent a fair return on their capital; nor did he think that the man who purchased at a high price should receive any return on his capital if letting the house.

Mr. Crossman: I said that it was not necessary, in fixing a fair rent, to write into the formula anything which would enable him to get it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Fair enough. I think that the House fully understands what the right hon. Gentleman says. I wonder whether the House would pause for a moment to reflect on the consequences. It is no use providing that there shall be low rents for those who want them if there are not the houses to rent. Our subsection would give some incentive to people to provide new houses to let. It would do something to restore the willingness of private enterprise to provide houses to let.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the criti-

cisms of his paragraphs (b) and (c) and has accepted that there is something in them, but surely he would agree that the hub of his Amendment is in paragraph (a)—the rent agreed by the tenant and landlord—which, inevitably, would mean that, once again, houses would be put to let to the highest bidder.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Unusually for him, the hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat disingenuous in saying that. Anyone disagreeing with the rent would know what the rest of the provision said and would know that if he did not want to agree to a rent at a particular figure, alternatives would be open to him. Rents would be agreed against that background, which is the significant point.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Against a scarcity background.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Against the background of not being compelled to agree to a rent at a level which was excessive, because there would be alternatives provided in paragraphs (b) and (c).
I return to the point I was making and on which I intended to conclude. If something like our proposal were included, there would be a chance of getting people back into the market of providing accommodation to let. There would be a chance to get the man who had bought at a high price to let the house.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that the effect of what he has said is to give an overwhelming inducement to anyone who has acquired a house at that sort of price never to let it but to sell it again. Therefore, the effect of the Clause unamended, as the effect of the Bill as a whole, must be to accelerate the decline in the provision of privately owned accommodation to let. It would be a sorry triumph for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to say, "Look! I have reduced your rents and if only there were houses for you to rent, how cheap they would be!"

Mr. Lubbock: As the Minister knows, I have no objection whatever to the principle of his Clause and I should like explicitly to dissociate myself from his accusations against the Opposition. I have always said that scarcity could be disregarded in arriving at the fair rent. The


only difference between me and the Minister concerns the formula.
Having listened to the Minister's arguments in Committee and this afternoon, I still maintain that we should have done well to ask the rent assessment committees to take account of the gross rateable value. I have expressed the fear that anomalies will creep into rents in relation to rateable value in different parts of the country, and those fears have been confirmed by our discussion this afternoon.
I am certainly not a Parliamentary draftsman, any more than the writer of the leading article in The Times is, and I do not claim that the wording of my proposal is absolutely perfect, but I think that its principle is much better than the present vague phraseology of subsection (1)—
age, character and locality of the dwelling-house".
I cannot understand why those features were selected.
I pointed out to the Minister in Committee that there might be a Queen Anne house which would have a very much higher potential letting value than one built in 1965. Therefore, there would not be even a statistical relationship between the age of the property and the amount of the fair rent which could be demanded for it. In spite of all the anomalies in our rateable values, at least the Minister would go as far as to say that there was a statistical relationship between rents and gross rateable values.
I agree with the Minister's dislike of the rigidity of Amendment No. 40, but in discussing this matter one would do well to admit that there is no incentive to providing new dwellings for letting at the moment. There has been no such incentive over the last few years when there has been no restriction on rents which could be demanded for new properties erected for private letting. Yet, since the 1957 Rent Act the number of properties available for private letting has fallen by about 4 per cent. per annum. The simple reason has been that landlords of controlled properties who have gained possession have sold them for owner occupation. We would do well to recognise that the Bill will accelerate

that process, but I am perfectly willing to admit that and to accept the consequences, which are that we should have a much expanded public housing programme, particularly in areas such as Greater London, where there is much older controlled property.
This afternoon, the Minister said that the London Rent Assessment Committee would probably be established a few weeks in advance of the remainder and would set the tone. I would ask him to reflect on this, because if what he says is true, then the other rent assessment committees, which, he implies, are to follow the lead given by London, will not be able to take account of the locality of the dwelling-house.

Mr. Crossman: I used the word "tone" very carefully. I did not mean that London rents should be a precedent for those in the provinces. They will show how to set about the job and that is why I used the word "tone" and not "precedent"

Mr. Lubbock: Then it is only proceedings of the rent assessment committees that the Minister is talking about and not the rents. I am grateful to him for correcting me on that but this led me to think that probably, in many cases, the decisions of the rent officers would be by reference to the pevious fair rents decided on for similar properties. I think that it must be admitted that we would have done well to write into the criteria something about the fair rents of similar properties in the locality.
As I envisage it, what will happen is that the rent officer will assess a fair rental for a three-bedroom, semi-detached house, with a garden 20 feet long and 15 feet wide. When he comes to another similar property he will look this up in his records and say, "That is the rent I arrived at for that property". So there is no need to go back to first principles at all. One is doing the whole thing by reference and one will build up a kind of case law, which it might have been a good idea to make explicit in the Bill, as guidance to rent officers on how they should proceed.
However we may criticise Clause 22, and I have been among the sternest critics of all, I agree with a lot of what The Times said in this connection. I think now we have come to this stage in the Bill


when we must express the hope that it will work fairly and that the fears we have expressed will not be too serious, and we must wish the rent officers and the rent assessment committee well in their task.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "and" in line 4, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes, 143.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[8.15 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gregory, Arnold
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel
Hale, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Owen, Will


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Boston, T. G.
Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Parkin, B. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Holman, Percy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooson, H. E.
Pentland, Norman


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Horner, John
Popplewell, Ernest


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Randall, Harry


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Rees, Merlyn


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cronin, John
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Sheldon, Robert


Darling, George
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Small, William


Dell, Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Dunnett, Jack
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
McCann, J.
Urwin, T. W.


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Varley, Eric G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mclnnes, James
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Warbey, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, Tudor


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McLeavy, Frank
White, Mrs. Eirene


Floud, Bernard
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ford, Ben
Mapp, Charles
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Roy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Robert



Garrow, A.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Charles Grey and




Mr. Brian O'Malley.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bullus, Sir Eric


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Black, Sir Cyril
Carlisle, Mark


Astor, John
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Box, Donald
Chataway, Christopher


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Cole, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Brewis, John
Cooke, Robert


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Corfield, F. V.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver




Curran, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, James
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, J. M. L.


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roots, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Emery, Peter
Litchfield, Capt. John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Sharples, Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Gammans, Lady
McMaster, Stanley
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Mathew, Robert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grant, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mitchell, David
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, William


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgins, Terence L.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Wise, A. R.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jennings, J. C.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Francis Pym and




Mr. R. W. Elliott

Amendment made: In page 14, line 4, after "circumstances", insert:
(other than personal circumstances)".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 24.—(FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, Amendment No. 46, in page 15, line 2, after "under" to insert "paragraph 10 of".
This is a very short and crisp Amendment which deals with a drafting problem which caused some trouble in Committee. The previous reference to the Schedule did not indicate which paragraph was involved. I was advised at the time, and I am still advised, that probably it was clear from the point of view of construction what was referred to, but it seemed to me fair that it should be made clear to the layman that only paragraph 10 was involved.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for making it clear, not only to the layman but to the lawyer as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 15, line 5, to leave out from "exceeding" to the end of line 6 and to insert:

fifty pounds and, on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds".
This is an Amendment to bring the penalty provisions in this Clause into line with the alteration to the other penalty provisions previously made with the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(HARASSMENT OF OCCUPIERS.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, Amendment No. 48, in page 15, line 10, at the beginning to insert:
(1) If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 64.

The Attorney-General: In Committee the effectiveness of Clause 25 dealing with the harassment of occupiers came


under a good deal of discussion. I undertook to consider whether the Clause, together with Clause 26 and, to some extent, Clause 27, could be clarified, and I expressed the view that it might be necessary to recast Clauses 25 and 26, in particular. This has proved to be the case, and to assist hon. Members in considering these Government Amendments we have made available a reprint of Clauses 25 to 27 as they will read if the Amendments are accepted. I hope that hon. Members will permit me and will find it convenient to refer to the Clauses as they are set out in the reprint.
The House will see from a comparison of the reprint with the Clauses as they appear in the Bill that the Amendments result in reorganisation of Clauses 25 and 26. As these Clauses appear before amendment, Clause 25 deals with the new criminal offence of harassment—

Sir Martin Redmayne: If I might interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I should like to make a small protest. I feel that if there is a reprint in the Vote Office, it should be on the Table of the House. It so happens that neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) have been to the Vote Office today. We have been working on yesterday's Order Paper. The organisation of the House has, perhaps, fallen down a little in this respect. Perhaps, therefore, the Attorney-General will be a little more careful in his explanation.

The Attorney-General: Yes, of course. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me and my right hon. Friend from any oversight of the welfare of the House in this matter, but in the circumstances I will certainly not rush matters.
8.30 p.m.
As it stands without amendment, Clause 25 deals with the new offence of harassment. In Committee and in comment in the Press and elsewhere, doubts were expressed whether its terms were adequate to cover unlawful evictions not falling under Clause 26. Unlawful eviction is the most flagrant and blatant of all forms of harassment. That is something that has had to be dealt with in the redraft which I present to the House. In its present form, Clause 26 does two things. It prohibits eviction without re-

course to the courts, and it imposes a penalty on eviction in contravention of that prohibition.
In the proposed new form, the Clauses will deal with these matters differently. A new subsection (1), which is Amendment No. 48, appears in Clause 25. That covers all unlawful evictions including those previously made unlawful by Clause 26. The new Clause 25(1) creates an offence of unlawful action to deprive an occupier of his dwelling or attempting to do so. Clause 26 as amended merely states the prohibition without itself creating an offence.
As a consequential Amendment, the saving for civil remedies in the tenant adversely affected, which is now found in lines 42 and 43 of page 15 of the Bill, is transferred to Clause 25 and it forms subsection (4) of that Clause:
Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice any liability or remedy to which a person guilty of an offence thereunder may be subject in civil proceedings.
As a result of the Amendments, the scope of the offence of unlawful eviction will be widened. I say that for these reasons. First, unlike the present Clause 26(2), the new Clause 25(1) will no longer be confined to the eviction of former tenants protected by Clause 26. It will extend to eviction of tenants and former tenants under tenancies protected under other legislation such as the Rent Acts themselves or the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
Secondly, the scope of the offence of unlawful eviction will be widened because the definition of "residential occupier", which among others includes persons protected by Clause 26, will itself be widened by the widening of the definition of the occupier in Clause 26. In the reprint, Clause 26(3) includes these terms:
in this section 'the occupier", in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy".
Hon Members will therefore see how wide this definition of "occupier" is. The definition will also be improved—and it may be that my hon. Friend will deal with this—so far as Scotland is concerned, by Amendment No. 53 in page 15, line 27, which inserts, "or rule of law", in recognition of the fact, which


I think emerged as a fact although there was some query about it at some stage, that, as amended, Clause 26(4) also recognises, the prohibition of self-help in evicting a former tenant is part of the common law of Scotland.

Mr. Hendry: indicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at that proposition, but I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to see that the head remains either stationary or nods downwards in an affirmative direction if this interesting matter still remains an issue between us.
As the House will see, Clause 25(1) as it is now proposed to amend it, is directed only against unlawful acts. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I read it. It says:
If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
I emphasise, therefore, that the Clause is directed only against unlawful acts, as one would expect to be the case when one is creating a new criminal offence. It will not make it an offence to attempt to deprive a tenant or former tenant of his occupancy by lawful means, such as the service of notice to quit or the institution of proceedings for possession against him.

Mr. Graham Page: That word "unlawful" applies only to subsection (1). I am a little puzzled as to how it is introduced into subsection (2).

The Attorney-General: I shall come to that, because we had an interesting discussion on this in Committee. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point has not been overlooked, and it might be that I shall now convince him that lawful acts are not charged as a criminal offence under this proposed legislation.
As I was venturing to point out to the House, the emphasis, and indeed the essence, of Clause 25(1) is the commission of unlawful acts, the unlawful deprival of occupation. The fact that subsection (1) is drafted in terms of unlawful acts

should, I think, make it clear that the legitimate exercise of a landlord's remedies is not brought in, so to speak, on a side wind by subsection (2). I ought to add that this emerged during the debate last night on the proposal of the hon. Member, not for Lubbock, but for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—I have it right this time—about the notice to quit. As I ventured to point out then, if a series of otherwise legitimate acts are done oppressively, accumulatively, and excessively, like a series of notices to quit served in circumstances of intimidation, or whatever the case may be, so as to make life a misery for the occupier and to force him out, the offence of harassment might be found by a court to be committed under Clause 25(2). I repeat, as I said last night, that subsection (1) is not, and is not intended to be, a kind of charter protecting the landlord who showers his tenant with notices to quit and a series of threat of legal proceedings every time the postman knocks.
I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will bear with me: it underlines the difficulty about the solution of the problem which is worrying him, which, on the face of it, could easily be resolved by putting in "does unlawful acts" in line 14. The difficulty is that a series of lawful acts done in such a fashion as to constitute acts
calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household",
and so on, although being lawful acts taken singly or individually, could, cumulatively and in the fashion of their performance, collectively constitute harassment. That is the difficulty. The prima facie attractive solution of introducing the word "unlawfully" or "unlawful" into subsection (2) does not meet the case.
It will be abundantly clear to any court—we must not lose sight of the fact that common sense operates even in the courts of justice, at whatever level—that lawful acts such as the serving of a lawful notice to quit clearly are not intended to be criminal acts, and cannot conceivably be interpreted or be deemed to be criminal acts by reason of the words of subsection (2).

Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General, and I do not


want to interrupt more than is necessary, but he is putting a very astonishing proposition to the House, namely, that a series of lawful acts may be unlawful. This is about as novel an idea in law as was the suggestion that we put forward in an Amendment yesterday, at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman scoffed.

The Attorney-General: Harassment is a new criminal offence, and I should not have thought that the House would be in great difficulty in agreeing that there is a clear justification for the view that a landlord who oppressively serves a series of notices in the circumstances to which I have referred is not merely carrying out the lawful right of communication but is embarking upon a course of conduct amounting to harassment causing unnecessary interference with the peace and comfort of the occupier.
The harassment that is more likely to be dealt with by the courts will not be harassment by way of the issuing of a shower of lawful notices to quit. The kind of harassment that the Bill bites at is that which is so vividly exemplified through many of the pages of the Milner Holland Report. It was the shock that the community had when it discovered the appalling methods and devices used by racketeering and crooked landlords to extort, exploit and extract tenants, which drove the Government, and, before them, the Milner Holland Committee, to recommend that we should add to the armoury of the civil law that which had previously been added in New York and other places, namely, the armoury of the criminal law, directed against a serious course of anti-social, indeed, criminal misconduct.
8.45 p.m.
As I have said, the Amendments propose an important change in Clause 26 in addition to the changes involved in transferring subsection (2) of Clause 26 in a generalised form to Clause 25. They will substantially widen the definition of the occupier, as I have said, and therefore the class of person which is to be protected by self-help from being evicted like mere trespassers. In the view of the Government, there is no reason that anyone lawfully residing in the premises when the tenancy comes to an end—whether a sub-tenant, the former tenant's

deserted wife or even someone sharing a flat with him, all problem cases which we discussed in Committee—should not have the basic protection of the Clause.
Amendment No. 58, which will now appear as subsection (3) of Clause 26 in the reprint, ensures that all these persons have that protection. So we have, by this redraft, simplified the problem which previously confronted us with a good deal of difficulty, and I think that we have met a problem which was ventilated on both sides of the Committee. Nevertheless, even in its new form, Clause 26 will be confined to tenancies which are not protected under the Acts of Parliament listed in Clause 28. The House will remember that, in Clause 28, protected tenancies are referred to and in this part of the Bill that phrase means tenancies to which the various Acts of Parliament which are then listed refer. The fact that a protected tenancy does not enjoy the basic protection does not, of course, mean that when a protected tenancy expires, the tenant can be kicked out unceremoniously without a court order.
The case of Cruise v. Terrell in 1922 decided that the Rent Restriction Acts did not allow that, and I have no doubt that a court will take the same view of the other Acts giving protection to the particular classes of tenancies which are referred to in the legislation listed in Clause 28. Perhaps I might also be allowed to refer to Amendment No. 65, in Clause 28, in page 17, line 34 to leave out from "applies" to the end of line 35 and to insert:
(c) a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England or Wales.
I hope that this is one of the Amendments which you called, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. I think that it was not one of the Amendments which you called, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. On the other hand, I think that it would be convenient to discuss it with these Amendments.

The Attorney-General: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It might be helpful if I dealt with Amendment No. 65 in this Omnibus Second Reading consideration of these matters. That Amendment is designed to cure a defect to which our attention was drawn in Committee by the hon. Member for


Crosby. It will prevent the definition of "protected tenancy" from extending to tenancies which are not, in fact, protected by any body of legislation, because it will delete the words to which the hon. Member for Crosby referred in Committee and which at present appear in paragraph (b) of Clause 28:
… or would apply but for section 43 thereof".
The hon. Member for Crosby referred to the unsatisfactory result of including those words.
Amendment No. 61, which is the first Amendment to Clause 27, preserves the effect of that Clause by reinstating the previous definition of "the occupier" but omitting any reference to a subtenant. Clause 26(4) states:
In this Part of this Act 'the occupier', in relation to any premises, means any of the following persons …".
It goes on in subsection (4,b):
any person to whom the premises or part thereof have been lawfully sub-let as a dwelling".
In the amended Clause 27 "the occupier" is defined in subsection (2) in terms similar to the old Clause 26(4), but with the deletion of the reference to subletting in respect of agricultural employees and premises of the type dealt with in Clause 27. The occupier in Clause 27 is, therefore, defined in narrower terms than he is in Clause 26 because we are anxious in Clause 26 to cover as wide a range of person lawfully in occupation as we can, but we appreciate that there are good reasons for restricting the range of protected occupation in Clause 27.
The only other Amendment applying to England—which again arose from our discussion in Committee—is the one to Clause 27, Amendment No. 62, which arose out of the expertise of hon. Members of the Committee who were obviously fully conversant with the details of agricultural operations. They asked such questions as whether broiler houses were included within the ambit of Clause 27. The Clause has been amended so that the reprint of subsection (5,b) is designed to cover agricultural operations. The reprint now reads:
whether the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any

agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced …".
That compares with different language in Clause 27, where one sees, I hope, the previous expression in page 17, line 9,
… whether the efficient management of any agricultural land …
That has now been restated in terms to meet the point made on both sides of the Committee.
I am grateful to the House for permitting me to state those matters in these general terms. I wish that I could have made the task lighter for the House—I know that it is not an easy one—but I hope that the House may feel that we have honourably carried out what we undertook to do during the Committee stage, and that the House will give its thoughts to these Government Amendments.

Mr. Carlisle: We are all grateful to the Attorney-General for his very full exposition of what are now virtually three new Clauses. Clause 25 has certainly undergone very considerable change since the Bill first came before the House. I say at once that I shall not attempt to say anything on those Amendments that appear to deal with Scotland—and Amendment No. 53 in particular. I have not been able to understand the purpose of adding those words to the subsection.
I understand that the Amendments to Clause 25 are mainly drafting Amendments intended to improve and clarify its purpose in view of the various matters that were raised in Committee. I think that the wording now used is very much more satisfactory than that used in the original Clause 25 and Clause 26(1). In particular, I feel that the use of the words
If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises …
an offence is committeed, is clearly a considerable improvement on the previous words:
… attempts to enforce his right of possession …",
which seemed to be extremely wide.
The learned Attorney-General has repeated that under the existing subsection (2) of Clause 26 it might well have been argued that such a move as service of notice to quit could have created an offence. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that when one is framing a Clause that creates a new criminal


offence, it is very necessary that its terms should be clear and definite.
I think that the wording of subsection (2) of Clause 25 is still open to argument. I appreciate the difficulty of bringing in the word "unlawful" before "acts". It could be argued that an act such as the service of a notice to quit might, provided it was repeated more than once and so become "acts", be said to be acts covered by the Clause. There is still a certain amount of argument possible there, but the Clause is far clearer than it was before.
9.0 p.m.
I wish to say something on the Amendments to Clauses 26 and 27. I accept that the Amendment to Clause 26 to extend the definition of "occupier" has been brought in as a result of matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee and matters raised by several of my hon. Friends who were on the Committee to the effect that such people as a deserted wife were not covered by the word "occupier". In attempting to cover those difficult cases which were not previously covered, the present definition of "occupier" has gone extremely wide. There is no possible limitation on time, how long a person has been residing in the house.
The words,
residing … at the termination of the former tenancy
could include someone who normally lived there, but was away when the tenancy terminated. While I appreciate that it is necessary to have a wide coverage of people who should have the basic protection of the Bill, under the present definition of "occupier"—since it is no longer limited to a tenant to people specifically referred to as it was previously in Clause 26—does this now mean that an order has to be obtained for possession against every person residing in the house at the time the tenancy terminated?
"Occupier" would cover all of them. If proceedings are taken against the previous tenant, would it mean that any other persons living there would not be affected by those proceedings but further proceedings would have to be taken against them? If so, this seems a fairly

wide extension of the previous definition and one which raises certain difficulty.
The final matter I raise is on the Amendment to Clause 27. I appreciate that the Attorney-General, in bringing in this definition under the agricultural tied cottages Clause, has done so for the purpose of attempting to limit the types of people who would have the further protection which occupiers of agricultural tied cottages have under the Bill, but why is it necessary to have this Clause in this form? Why is it necessary to give people even referred to in the more limited definition of the word "occupier" greater rights to stay on in that type of service occupancy house than in any other form of service occupancy house?
I put a question which I put in Committee and which the Attorney-General has not answered. Even accepting the limitation of the definition of "occupier" in Clause 27, this still means that if a person working in agriculture dies, his son or daughter or other member of his family have greater protection against the employer who wishes to have the house for some other employee than a similar person who is the son or daughter of a policeman, a schoolmaster, or anyone living in another service occupancy house. There seems no possible justification which the Government have at any time put forward for a greater extension than for others in service occupancy. I suggest that this is because the Government are basically anti-farming. That is the only reason which can be found for the different interpretation of the Clauses.
I am sure that the Government have attempted to limit this matter to a greater degree than it was before and in relation to Clause 25 we welcome the Amendments.

Sir M. Redmayne: Before I seek very briefly to reinforce some of the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I want to return to the matter of the redraft of the Bill which the Attorney-General said was put in the Vote Office. I do not want to be tedious about this, but the Government once or twice lately, no doubt in a spirit of great helpfulness, have produced papers of this sort. In point of fact, this paper is not, or it was not at the time when it was referred to, in the Vote Office.
If the Government are to be helpful to this extent, they should try to get the machinery of it rather better. I remind the Attorney-General that I have sat on the Government Front Bench often enough and heard most terrible rows in the House because this type of mistake has been made; rows perhaps particularly caused by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I do not see in his place, and other Scottish Members.
I hope that I have not wasted the time of the House by drawing attention to the fact that, if these procedures are to be adopted, it would be as well to provide a service which is available to all Members and not merely to those who may be lucky enough to obtain these pieces of paper. I say this without any malice, but in a spirit of helpfulness.
I must confess that when I first saw the Amendment relating to the occupier in respect of Clause 27 I put a rather worse interpretation on it than the explanation of the Attorney-General warrants. It is clear that if, in Clause 26, the definition of "occupier" is now to be as wide as it is—I would not quarrel with that for a moment; I do not think that my hon. Friends quarrel with it—it is necessary that there should be a specific definition in Clause 27.
We have a natural sympathy for a widow in any circumstances of misfortune. I wonder whether the definition as it will be written into the Bill, particularly the extension of it relating to "any member of his family", does not rather upset the balance of the Clause, in the sense that the court will take into account the considerations in Clause 27(4), namely, what other accommodation will be available and the question of efficient management. We are grateful to the Government for extending that consideration.
I say, without wishing to appear to be hard-hearted, that the third consideration in Clause 27(4), namely, the matter of greater hardship, will almost automatically fall more heavily on the side of the occupier where the occupier is a widow. If this is viewed purely from the point of view of sympathy, one would say that that is perfectly justified. However, since considerable attempts have been made to ensure that, although justice is done, the ordinary and proper processes of farming

are not interfered with, this upsets the balance and, to my mind, constitutes a stronger argument for the Amendment which I hope to move shortly, which might enlarge the considerations which are to be taken into account by the court.
Amendment No. 61 relates to the tenant or to the widow of the tenant or a member of his family. Some of my hon. Friends have tabled an Amendment to Amendment No. 27 to exclude
any member of his family residing with him at his death".
It is pertinent to ask what is the legal definition of "any member of his family". It can be rather wide. The definition is taken very wide, when considering this matter from the point of view of the peculiar interests of agriculture, if it simply refers to those
residing with him at his death".
We have great sympathy for the widow in these circumstances. Equally, we would have special sympathy for a daughter who had looked after a widower for some reasonable period of time. We would have slightly less sympathy if it referred to a daughter who had only come to look after the old man as he died. We would have no sympathy at all for any member of the family, as that broad description goes, who simply moved in at a convenient moment in anticipation of the death of the occupier in order to take advantage of the law.
We have to be realistic about these matters and to consider situations which might arise. I think it right that I should ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what sort of protection for the employer or for the landlord the court is likely to provide in these cases. In view of the balance between this Clause and the previous one, Clause 26, although we would accept that some such definition was necessary, I would suggest to him that it would be wise to look again in another place at the wording of this Amendment and see whether, in the special circumstances of agriculture which have been openly admitted and, in the course of this Bill, quite willingly admitted, this Amendment is not too wide.
I grant that it is perfectly right that the widow should be included and that a member of the family in a special position should be included, but I think that it


really destroys what the Committee and the House have tried to do in respect of the particular interests of agriculture in this matter if it is allowed to go wider than that.
I must confess I am interested in Amendment No. 65 and, rather rashly, I question whether, by its drafting, the Government have done precisely what they want to do. As the Bill was drafted originally, it was the intention to class as protected tenancies all of those in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, including those in Section 43. Subsequently, in this Amendment a special reference to a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England or Wales has been brought in.
If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Landlord and Tenant Act as amended by an amendment in 1958, in, I think, an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, he will see that the reference in Section 43 of the Landlord and Tenant Act has an addition to it which refers to certain tenancies under Section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. It seems to me to be a somewhat untidy way of making this Amendment to put specifically into this present Bill a reference to a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England or Wales, and leave outstanding in Section 43 of the Landlord and Tenant Act this other definition of a tenant.
If one studies Section 43 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, it will be seen that one of the exclusions to that Act applies to a tenancy granted by reason that the tenant was the holder of an office from the grantor thereof and continuing only so long as the tenant holds the office. I understand that it would not be the wish of the Government to make that a protected tenancy, and that is why the Amendment has been put down in this form.
9.15 p.m.
But it will be found that Section 43(2) also says:
Provided that this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a tenancy granted after the commencement of this Act unless the tenancy was granted by an instruction in writing ….
As I read it, that subsection relates to just such a tenancy as No. 10 Downing Street. It seems to me, therefore, that there may hidden behind this innocent

Amendment to the Rent Bill an intention on the part of the Government to give to the Prime Minister under the proviso in Section 43(2) of that Act a protected tenancy of the residence which he now occupies. This seems to me to explain to some extent the extraordinary assurance which the right hon. Gentleman recently showed that he is likely to remain in office even as long as he indicated.

The Attorney-General: If the Prime Minister had only a protected tenancy he would not be entitled to basic protection and that would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Happily, he has the basic protection of the support of the majority of the British people.

Sir M. Redmayne: That is an assumption which has been rashly made both by the Prime Minister and now by the Attorney-General.
However, although I admit that I am venturing on dangerous ground I think that my interpretation of the drafting is correct. I ask the Attorney-General to look at this point of drafting and put it right in another place. Although I am no lawyer, I think, that there is something in it. We understand the intentions of these sundry Amendments and do not oppose them.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: My right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) referred to cases where the children turn up at the last moment when the parent is dying and are then able to continue to occupy the premises as a result of having been present during those last few hours.
We all know that in life there are two sins. There is the sin of commission and there is the sin of omission. To my mind nothing more cruel goes on every day than what happens in certain cases where these old people live in loneliness, poverty and illness. They can stand all those things but the one thing that hurts them more than anything else is to be deserted by those whom they love. I feel that to have on the Statute Book a law which allows people to come in and occupy the premises because of their presence during the last hours of a parent's life seems entirely wrong. I hope that this matter will be put right.

Mr. Cole: I should like to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions on the subject of residence to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) have referred.
Last night, the Attorney-General dealt with the same point in another connection and went on to explain what seemed to be an obvious statement of fact. He said:
'Resided' means resided. It therefore covers a bona fide resident and not merely an overnight taking up of temporary occupation before the benefits of the Clause come into operation. I do not think that any court would have difficulty about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June 1965; Vol. 715, c. 370.]
Is that definition still to apply to the various Amendments we are discussing where the word "resident" or the reference to taking up residence occurs? If so, I think that we shall be satisfied; but we do not want two definitions of the same term in the Bill.

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned the Scottish Amendments. There appear to be three. I was not aware that Amendment No. 53 was intended to be a Scottish Amendment. It means nothing but, if it be a Scottish Amendment, it is completely harmless, and I shall say no more about it.
Amendment No. 59 replaces the original drafting in Clause 26, which was slightly longer and was more indicative of the verbiage employed by the original drafters of the Bill. The original drafting was utterly meaningless. I dealt in Committee with the law applying in this case, and I came to the conclusion that the original drafting was quite irrelevant to the law of Scotland.
The drafting substituted by the Amendment is equally irrelevant to the law of Scotland and the subsection has no meaning whatever. Apparently, the Clause, if it does anything, extends the law of Scotland, making it essential to take up a court order where a court order may or may not be necessary, and to say that this is done without prejudice to
any rule of law in Scotland prohibiting the securing of possession other than by due process of law

seems to be completely redundant, meaningless and irrelevant in the context. I say no more about that. At least it is harmless, and we need bother no more about it.
I welcome Amendment No. 64 as an improvement on the original drafting. I have already made proposals to the Under-Secretary of State explaining how I should like the paragraph to be drafted. Here we agree to differ, but I advise the House that, from the point of view of Scottish law, the Amendment is perfectly satisfactory.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is quite right to say that Amendment No. 64 appears in response to an undertaking which I gave him in Committee. I am sorry that we have not matched his expectation exactly, but I think that we are at one in our intention to make sure that the new drafting properly adjusts the meaning with reference to the English expression "mesne profits". Hon. Members will recall that we discussed this matter at our 16th sitting in Committee.
I am not sure whether I should be sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks the other two Amendments are irrelevant. It is worth while putting on record that the Government, as was quite proper, took the hon. Gentleman's contention very seriously when he argued the matter and cited various cases. Hon. Members may remember the case of the coachman and one or two other rather entertaining examples of Victorian morality which were cited in this connection. We have taken the matter very seriously and looked closely at all the hon. Gentleman said. We consider that Amendments Nos. 53 and 59, which hang together, clarify the law and bring the Bill in relation to the law of Scotland beyond doubt. At least, we hope so. [Interruption.] Lawyers are so difficult, as we know.
The Second Report of the Scottish Law Reform Committee published in 1956, Command 114, recited 10 methods of eviction. Earlier, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that there are six practical methods still in existence. The Government have tried to make the position clear and successfully did so on a previous Amendment. But, in relation to this matter, both the Scottish Amendments


justify what Ministers have been saying up till now as being the law of Scotland. In fact, we have looked further into the legal declarations on the matter and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West to two authorities.
9.30 p.m.
In 1948, Lord Keith said quite unequivocally that the proper course under the law in all cases was to apply to the court for a warrant of ejection. The second version—and this is an impeccable source—came from the only former Scottish Law Officer we have in the House—the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) who said, during the passage of the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964:
The Scottish position was quite clear. In Scotland it has never been possible to eject a person from a tied cottage. The Bill bears little relationship to the existing law in Scotland. The position is that in Scotland the farmer must go to the court to have a person evicted. It has been said that that has been the law in Scotland for some years. It all depends on what one means by 'some years'. It has been the law in Scotland since 1555."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1556–7.]
To put the argument beyond all doubt we are, therefore, including these Amendments relating to Scotland. Even if the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West does not agree with the substance, he will agree that we have worked hard to clear the matter up.

Mr. Hendry: Whatever the law of Scotland may be about putting out someone by the scruff of the neck, is the hon. Gentleman saying that, as the Bill is drafted, that will no longer be the case?

Dr. Mabon: Not quite. The hon. Gentleman and I are starting from different premises. He argued that the law was not what Ministers said it was in discussion both on the Protection from Eviction Act and in Committee on this Bill. However, we are supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands. But to remove all doubt we now say that our Amendments clarify the situation once and for all. If we have the hon. Gentleman's agreement to this—as I am certain we will—I hope that it will settle the argument finally.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am finding it difficult to follow the

intricacies of the debate. So much of this legislation is by reference and, indeed, by negative reference. If Amendment No. 65 means what I understand it to mean, the outgoing tenant of a farm will yield up the farm land on a certain day but only with a court order can he be compelled to yield up the farmhouse. If the desire is to assist the widow of a farmer who may have died suddenly, then I can understand the Government's intention but, as drafted, the Amendment seems to have very much wider implications and I wonder how far they have been considered.
Most farms, leaving aside the question of sudden death of the farmer, resulting in an immediate disposition of the farm, change hands on dates that are perfectly well known months ahead, usually on quarter days, and the great majority of them at Michaelmas. Many farmers leave their farms voluntarily. Some may even give notice. Does this Clause, therefore, mean that, even where the farmer has not died but has merely agreed to leave the farm and may in fact himself have given notice, and arrangements have been made for an incoming tenant, that new tenant or even the new owner if a sale has taken place, will be deprived of the possession of the farm house unless a court order is obtained?
If I am right, this seems to bring about a whole series of untoward results, because it is essential that the incoming tenant, who has to establish his business in a very difficult takeover period, should get into the farmhouse which, after all, is the centre of command of operations.

The Attorney-General: If the position is that the outgoing tenant goes out, surely no problem arises and there is no need for a court order for the incoming tenant to come in, because the farmhouse presumably becomes vacant by the departure of the outgoing tenant.

Mr. Hill: If the farmer whose tenancy of the farm is ending and who has said that he would go out on a certain date stays in the house when that date comes, for good or bad reasons, does that mean that the new farmer will not be able to occupy the house? I apprehend that I am right.

The Attorney-General: Yes, that is quite right. That is so without a court order.

Mr. Hill: Precisely. But if the incoming farmer does not know that the former farmer is staying in the house, he will not be able to get a court order unless it is possible for him to apply for a precautionery court order, say, three months before the known date on which it is intended that the farmhouse should be handed over. I believe that many difficulties may flow from this situation in practice and I should, therefore, like to know whether this was asked for by the National Farmers' Union, which would be the representative body for both the outgoing and in the incoming farmer, and whether if it did not ask for it, it was consulted by the Government.

Mr. MacColl: I do not think that the National Farmer's Union asked for it. The general approach to these problems throughout the Bill has been that it should not be possible to get eviction without a court order. This position is in line with that in other cases, which is that if someone overstays for whatever reason, good or bad, he should be displaced by a court order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 19, at end insert:
guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be".

In line 24, at end insert:
(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice any liability or remedy to which a person guilty of an offence thereunder may be subject in civil proceedings.

In line 27, after "enactment", insert "or rule of law".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 26.—(PROHIBITION OF EVICTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.)

Amendment made: In line 40, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. Evelyn King: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 16, line 8, at the end to insert:
Provided that exclusive possession of the premises is not reasonably necessary for another person engaged in his place in that employment.
A few minutes ago the right hon. and learned Attorney-General was explaining to us that if a landlord sought to evict a tenant by means of harassment,

that landlord would become subject to a penalty of £500 or six months' imprisonment. That dealt with the generality of the case where a landlord and tenant exist. This Amendment deals with a number of small but very important exceptions. I must first read part of the Clause before explaining what we seek to do:
For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person who, under the terms of his employment, has exclusive possession of any premises otherwise than as a tenant shall be deemed to have been a tenant …
To this we add the words:
provided that exclusive possession of the premises is not reasonably necessary for another person engaged in his place in that employment".
We are dealing with the very small but important body of persons whose employment and whose roof go together. We are not concerned with the agricultural worker in a tied cottage, but with persons other than agricultural tenants. Why does such a person have a tied house at all? No employer who already has to provide salary or wages for his employee will normally provide him with very expensive housing unless there are very good reasons for so doing. Those reasons are normally that the employee, and also the tenant, has a job to do of such a kind that danger to life or limb is likely to be involved if a person is not always on the premises.
It follows that it is vitally important that the tenants of these houses should always be there. The danger in this Bill is that a person who holds a job of that kind, can now stay on for a period that may be—subject to some argument, and after allowing for various court procedures—something up to two months. Thus, the institution by which the person is employed will be deprived of an employee vital to it. To take the example of the housemaster or schoolmaster, it does not matter whether the schoolmaster is teaching in a borstal or a grammar school. Headmasters and governing bodies sometimes make mistakes in their appointments and if a housemaster or a schoolmaster should, for whatever reason, take to drugs or drink, or assault a pupil, or something of that kind, then in these instances, which as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will know, are not entirely unknown, I should have


thought everyone would share the view that such a person must go forthwith.
It would be intolerable if such a person were allowed to remain on the premises for two months, thus keeping out his successor as well as obviously causing the school a considerable degree of embarrassment. There is also the example of the resident medical officer, serving perhaps in a mental hospital. There are cases of breakdown, ill-treatment, drink or drugs and it would be quite intolerable for such a person to be permitted to remain in residence, although he had previously had charge of the institution. Under this Bill he could elect to do so.
It may be argued that such a person would normally, for very shame, move out the following day. But we are dealing, ipso facto, with a person who is not ordinary. People charged with or who are guilty of offences of such a character are the very people likely to be difficult, who usually claim to be innocent and remain to continue the job. I have referred to the schoolmaster and the medical officer. There is obviously the question of the resident nurse. There is the vital question of the resident engineer, perhaps in an atomic establishment upon whom responsibilities of almost any kind may rest.
I do not want to carry this too far, but there was the case of the sergeant in the American Air Force who, while in charge of such an establishment, was found to be mentally unstable. I should think that the American forces got rid of him very quickly. If such a case were to arise in this country, it would be intolerable that under this Bill someone who told that person to go forthwith should be subject to a fine of £100 or six months in prison. As I understand it, that is precisely what might happen under the Bill.
The point that I seek to make—and I will not weary the House with further examples because I want to get on—is that whatever good effect the Clause may have in the generality of landlord and tenant cases, there are quite exceptional cases in which the relationship of landlord and tenant is supplemented by the relationship of employer and employee in respect of which such provisions become, apparently, unsuitable. The difficulty is that in a Bill mainly concerned with landlord and tenant we have

got inextricably tied up with a totally different problem—that is, the relationship which exists between employer and employee.
This small Amendment seeks to except from the Bill the small number of people other than agricultural employees who, it might be thought, would be in such a position as I have described.

Mr. MacColl: This matter was explored in Committee. As the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) says, there is undoubtedly a situation here which calls for action by the courts. I think that the difference between us is not whether swift action should be taken, but whether that swift action should be taken by the process of law in the courts or by self-help. Once we accept the principle of the Clause—that the proper way of getting people out of their homes is by the process of law—it becomes difficult to make exceptions to that rule from the purely practical point of view.
If an employer wanted to get out someone who was in a service occupation of this sort, he would not, under the Amendment, be sure of getting him out safely unless he was confident that in an action against him—either a criminal prosecution or in litigation for assault—he was able to establish that it was reasonably necessary for another person to be in that place of employment. I imagine that no sensible employer would be likely to risk that. If anybody had to decide whether the other person must have the home, he would say, "This is a matter which I must obviously take to the court. I cannot decide it myself".
I do not think that the Amendment would help to meet the mischief to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, and I do not think that it would be a wise exception to make to the general rule laid down in the Clause.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether the criteria laid down in paragraph (g) of Schedule 1 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, would cover the kind of case which the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) has in mind? The Schedule says:
A court shall … have power to make or give an order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any dwelling-house …";


Paragraph (g) states:
the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into".
9.45 p.m.
If those words apply to the kind of tenancies that the hon. Member for Dorset, South has in mind, such as a schoolmaster or another person who occupies a house as part of his employment, if such a person was dismissed for the kind of reasons which have been given and the new employee required the premises, this paragraph would seem to give the landlord power to bring evidence to the courts showing that the dwelling-house was reasonably required by him for the occupation of a new employee and that he could gain possession on those grounds. I should like to know whether this sort of case is already catered for in the Rent Act.

Mr. Evelyn King: The point is not whether the courts will give possession, but that to get possession may take anything up to one or two months. In the case of the person whom I have described, such a delay could be intolerable.

Mr. Lubbock: That is just the kind of case that we considered yesterday when we talked about expedited hearings. The Attorney-General explained that in the 90 cases considered so far, the maximum time taken was 11 days at Boston, Lincolnshire. It was considerably less than this in the London courts. Therefore, nothing like two months need elapse before the landlord could obtain possession in such cases.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The resistance to the Amendment would be better if it could be guaranteed that 11 days would never be exceeded. There are, however, exceptional cases and it is these which give strength to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 16, line 9, leave out from "Act" to first "the" in line 20.

In line 21, at end insert:
and in this section 'the occupier', in relation to any premises, means any person lawfully

residing in the premises or part of them at the termination of the former tenancy".

In line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to affect any rule of the law of Scotland prohibiting the securing of possession otherwise than by due process of law.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Clause 27.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES.)

Amendments made: In page 16, line 33, at end insert:
(2) In this section "the occupier", in relation to any premises, means—

(a) the tenant under the former tenancy; or
(b) the widow or widower of the tenant under the former tenancy residing with him at his death or, if the former tenant leaves no such widow or widower, any member of his family residing with him at his death.

In page 17, line 9, after "land" insert:
or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations".—[Mr. Crossman.]

Sir M. Redmayne: I beg to move Amendment No. 120, in page 17 line 12, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
(c) whether suspension of the execution of the order or its execution without suspension or further suspension would cause greater hardship to the occupier, or to the owner or to a person whom the owner employs or intends to employ and for whose occupancy he requires the premises.
You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to agree yesterday to select this Amendment because my hon. Friends wanted to express on the Floor of the House points concerning agricultural tenancies. Since you were kind enough in that respect, we have had a long and arduous time. I understand that an arrangement has been made between the two Front Benches that the House might rise a little earlier tonight than last night. I myself could not regard any such arrangement as having any significance, because it would never have been my habit during the last five years to think that it should. At the same time, I should like to do what I can to expedite matters by being brief and I do not doubt that my hon. Friends, although they must make their case, will do the same.
It might also save time if we discussed also Amendment No. 124, in Schedule 1, page 29, line 43, at end insert:
(4) The following shall be added at the end of that Schedule:—
(i) the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a


residence by a member of the agricultural population, and the court is satisfied that—

(a) prior to the letting the status of the dwelling-house was that of an agricultural dwelling-house within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928, and
(b) the person to whom such dwelling-house was let was not a member of the agricultural population, and
(c) it was a condition of that letting that the landlord shall be entitled to resume possession on the expiration of the six months written notice given by the landlord to the tenant for the reason that the landlord required possession of such dwelling-house for occupation by a member of the agricultural population.

This Amendment deals with a separate point, but I think that the two Amendments fall under roughly the same head.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Sir M. Redmayne: At the same time, perhaps we might reserve the right to divide on the second Amendment if that should seem to be desirable.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Sir M. Redmayne: It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that as you put the Question on Amendment No. 61 the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was about to rise and make an extremely accommodating remark. Subject to your approval, I am sure that in due course that remark will be in order on this Amendment, and I trust, therefore, that I can expect a favourable reply on that matter which is related to the Amendment.
Even if one wants to be brief, it is difficult, if one has not sat through the Committee stage of a Bill of this sort, to avoid being tedious, and I do not want to be so. Although we as an Opposition, are interested in the issue of the agricultural tied cottage, we have put down very few Amendments dealing with that topic, but it seems to me that this Amendment is sufficiently wide to enable us to try to bring home to the Government, even at this late hour, that we are not satisfied that the considerations offered to the court in the matter of hardship are wide enough.
I have studied carefully the debates on the various stages of the Bill, and it seems to me that although the atmosphere

on the Government side has improved in respect of the agricultural industry, they started out with some strange and old-fashioned prejudices in the matter. If that remark should be resented, I would quote only one of the two interventions made in all these debates by the Minister of Agriculture. When I say "all these debates", I mean the debates on this Bill and on the previous one, the Protection from Eviction Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said—this was the interesting one; the other was not—
We have been committed to this for many years, and we are very proud of it. Why should we not do something about it?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 1590.]
That seems to be a little bit prejudiced in its approach, and I think that the Ministers concerned with the Bill have shown themselves to be a good deal more forthcoming, although not as forthcoming as I would wish.
The right hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. MacColl) put the thing in a nutshell during the Committee stage when he was summing up on Question that the Clause should stand part of the Bill and he set out very fairly the considerations which were involved. He said that three parties were involved. First, there was the farmer. He had special and difficult problems arising from the nature of the industry, the nature of the farms, the nature of his responsibilities for his stock, and from the difficulty of getting labour, and so on.

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not right hon, nor am I the Member for Wigan, otherwise he is accurate.

Sir M. Redmayne: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am always regarded as the Member for Rushden, so we suffer from the same difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman fairly stated the farmers' case in this matter, but he then went on to make his second point and said:
But never, throughout this debate has there been any recognition by the Opposition that there is any problem at all from the point of view of the agricultural worker."—[OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F; 3rd June, 1965; c. 895.]
That scarcely shows the usual fairness and justice which the hon. Gentleman


shows in these matters, because it is obvious from reading the proceedings on these two Bills together that my right hon. and hon. Friends have put their arguments on farm workers' problems with full honesty.
A particular point which I think has not been sufficiently often made in these debates is that the problems of the incoming tenant of the tenancy may be just as pressing in a certain sense as those of the outgoing tenant, and that the fellow workers of both have an interest in the matter. This is why we have chosen to draft our Amendment in this form.
Almost throughout the whole of these debates the argument has concentrated on the outgoing tenant. It is he who would be homeless. The suggestion was made by a Liberal Member that a situation might arise in which his new house would be burnt down and he would be homeless on that account. I ask the House to consider this point carefully. Although, in the same degree, the incoming tenant may not find himself homeless, he is equally keen to get settled into his new house, and so is his wife—and his wife is the driving force in this matter.
Further, behind the incoming tenant there is another man with equal problems, and behind him another man again. The whole thing sets up a chain reaction. At quarter day in the farming industry the general post is more widespread and lively than it is in the situation which arises from one vacancy, which we have discussed in these debates.
Hon. Members opposite are right to express special sympathy for any specific case of hardship. We would all do that, and so would every employer, or as near every employer as makes no difference. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that labour relations in the agricultural industry have greatly improved in the last ten years. But in our enthusiasm for the individual case we should not forget the anxieties of all the others who are involved in the chain reaction which is set up by one case of hardship.
It is not confined to the outgoing and incoming tenant. There is also hardship in varying degree for the fellow-workers of the outgoer. There may be two tractor drivers on a farm, and if one goes out the other may have to do all the work.

That consideration can be applied throughout the whole pattern of employment on one farm. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) made a moving speech in Committee relating to relative hardship, and I am sure that he would agree that hardship is not simply a two-way traffic; it can be a three-way traffic, including the owner, a four-way traffic, including the stock, or a five-way traffic, including the other men who may be affected in certain circumstances.
The only other argument is that which was produced at an earlier stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) concerning the mobility of labour. Strangely enough, the tied cottage system has created in agriculture a mobility which ought to be the envy of other industries—a mobility which has obtained, in truth, with little hardship and with hardship which has been dealt with very fairly and adequately, and will certainly be so dealt with under the Bill.
This mobility is of great value to the industry, as it would be to any other, and it is, therefore, important that while justice must be done the conditions under which a tenant remains in his cottage must be seen to be fair and just, and to allow the industry the greatest possible latitude in resolving local problems as they arise.
This is the case that I put in support of the Amendment. It is desirable that the court should not only take into account the three considerations set out in the Bill, but should also be reminded that although we have every sympathy with the hardship of the outgoing tenant—if hardship arises—and although the court must take into account questions of the efficiency of the industry, there are many other considerations which ought to be brought to the mind of the court and which, if they are not brought to mind by the Bill, will be neglected simply because they are not referred to in the Bill. That is the whole difficulty of writing these matters into the Bill in this way. I therefore press on the right hon. Gentleman the need for the acceptance of the Amendment.
I will not say a word about the other Amendment which is coupled with this, except that I know that one of my hon. Friends will speak to it. To me, it seems absolutely common sense that there should be this ability and freedom for an agricultural cottage to be let to a tenant who


is not employed in the industry and to be taken back in hand perfectly freely, as set out in the Amendment, if that cottage should be required for agricultural puposes. This is a commonsense view. It is my belief that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his other faults, certainly does not lack common sense and will see the purpose and necessity of this proposal.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Although I consider Clause 27 as drafted unsatisfactory in many respects, not least in the interests of the farmworkers themselves, I want to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 124, which I am grateful to have discussed with this one. I think that this will avoid confusion because although—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hill: Although the physical subject matter of Amendment No. 124 overlaps part of that of Amendment No. 120, the two are otherwise quite distinct. The object of Amendment No. 124 is to enable spare farm cottages and farm houses which are temporarily surplus to the requirements of agriculture to be let as ordinary dwelling houses until they are needed again for agricultural uses. This problem was touched upon in Standing Committee when, in response to a slightly different Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), the Minister said:
… the problem which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is certainly genuine—the problem of a farmer who wants to keep a cottage for agricultural workers but to use it in between for something else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 2nd June, 1965; c. 838.]
Unless the principle of this Amendment is accepted, many cottages and farm houses will remain empty as a direct result of the Bill. An example of this is a small farmer who employs one worker in one tied cottage on the farm. If that worker lives, as he might do, in his own cottage in the village, his employer will not want to use the tied cottage. On

the other hand, he cannot possibly give up the right to possession of it because, should his present worker leave and he needs to engage a new one, he will require the cottage again.
A larger farmer may have more farm cottages on his farm than his present system of farming requires, but he will not dare sell them off because either a change in his labour requirements or a change in the farming system may make it necessary to attract new workers. If he should start a dairy herd, for example, he would certainly need one, possibly two stockmen.
Then there is the case whereby farmers in a larger way of business may be farming two or even more farms, each of which by itself would be a perfectly viable unit. Therefore, there is no question of amalgamation, but even so the farmer can live in only one farm house. Therefore, so long as he is running two or three farms jointly, he is likely to have one or more farmhouses surplus to his requirements. But the farmhouses cannot be sold off or permanently disposed of because the occasion may arise unexpectedly when these farms go back into separate tenancies or ownership.
Likewise, most agricultural estates probably have on them spare cottages and farmhouses which perhaps could be let off but which are never likely to be sold off. Some cottages are usually kept empty against future demands, such as for single workers who may marry and want to make their homes in them. After this Measure has become law farm cottages will have to be kept empty to provide a pool of alternative accommodation.
Any sensible person must wish to encourage people to occupy good rural housing, including some of the best farmhouses, because the limit of rateable value under the Bill of £200 a year will include most of the farmhouses in the country. Indeed, I understand that in Scotland it will include everything except about five castles. Unless we do something there will be a waste of accommodation at a time of shortage.
It is better if houses are lived in. It is bad for the rural areas if houses are kept empty. It is preferable that people should occupy homes in villages, even if they do not work in agriculture. In some cases that is extremely valuable because


such people add variety to these areas. Empty property of this kind is bad for local authorities, because, in respect of rates, they will have voids and indirectly have an additional burden placed on their housing lists.
Unless the Amendment is accepted there will be needless disappointment to many people who are prepared to be tenants with limited security, such as local people who want temporary accommodation or people visiting the district for an uncertain period, such as agents and sales representatives, as well as people who might wish to be newcomers to a district and who want temporary accommodation while they are looking for and acquiring a permanent home. To acquire such a home might take a year or two.
There are many people who move about the country and need temporary accommodation as part of their employment. It might even be a newly elected Member of Parliament, who suddenly finds himself representing a rural constituency and needing immediate temporary accommodation while he has a chance to look for something more permanent.
The National Union of Agricultural Workers acknowledged this difficulty on page 710 of its recently published polemic, "Farming for the Future", in which it stated:
At the present time there are hundreds of tied houses standing unused, many of which are structurally sound and could be turned into decent homes. But … farmers refuse to let them on an ordinary tenancy …
The union recommended that councils should requisition them. That seems a manifestly absurd solution of this problem and a quite unnecessarily costly one. The difficulty could be met if only the Government would not interfere too much with the ordinary freedom of contract in this respect.
The obvious solution is to allow these houses to be let with recovery of possession at short notice. The methods by which this could be done are technical and largely incomprehensible to me and I acknowledge the assistance which I have received from the Country Landowners' Association in suggesting the details of the Amendment. The Amendment is designed to add to the Schedule

of an earlier Measure in the chain of Rent Acts an exception in favour of this case. The ingredients of the Amendment are that the house must be an agricultural dwelling-house as defined for rating purpose, although I agree that the principle of the Amendment could apply to other houses, such as those mentioned in our discussion of the penultimate Amendment.
We say that the tenant must not be in agriculture, which means that we are not trying to get round Clause 27. We say that it should be a clear condition in the original letting, and understood from the start, that notice would be given, and be effective. Lastly, we say that the landlord should have to show that the house is wanted back for a member of the agricultural population.
I would remind the House that throughout the Schedule to which it is proposed to add this exception there is always the proviso that the court should think it reasonable in any case. I hope that the Minister will realise that this is a difficulty that ought to be met, and that even though the proposed words may not be exactly right he will implement the principle.
Assuming that the Minister agrees, I appeal to him not to make these lettings too difficult. It is very easy to deter owners from letting at all, because if the element of uncertainty comes in it may not be worth the trouble, as the lettings are not likely to be very remunerative compared with the administrative troubles, repairs, maintenance and so on. The crucial point is that if these spare houses are to be kept occupied it is essential that the two parties should be able to enter into a clear contract, and that the provisions for its termination should be duly and punctually observed.

Mr. John Wells: The problems of the general farmer have already been dealt with and I want to draw attention to the problems of the horticulturist. Most horticultural holdings are within 30 or 40 miles of our great cities, which means that any house that becomes temporarily vacant or temporarily removed from agriculture is probably lost for ever. There is a brisk market in weekend cottages. I would therefore ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the problems of those


farmers who are engaged in horticulture, because of the particular difficulties associated with their nearness to the great cities.
The horticulturist has another problem. The general farm is getting more highly mechanised every day—combines get wider and machinery becomes more efficient. So it is in horticulture, but horticulture is still the heaviest user of labour in the agricultural sphere. It employs more men per 10 acres than does any other branch of agriculture. I therefore urge the Minister, when considering these Amendments, to have in mind the problems of the horticulturists along with those of the general farmer.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I support Amendment No. 124. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) moved an Amendment in Committee to deal with this problem but withdrew it on the assurance of the Minister that further Amendments would deal with the matter. The Minister later wrote to my hon. Friend apologising for acting under a misapprehension at the time.
It is important that the problem should be dealt with in this Measure. In the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend cited as an example the tied cottage which the farmer is anxious to let when he does not have a farm worker immediately available for it. The example was given of the man with two cottages on his farm. I know that the Minister himself has knowledge of the agricultural sphere, although I am told that his experience may be a little rarified.
The problem arises in particular in remote districts. There may be two cottages on a farm, one of which is occupied by a farm worker who has two sons, both of whom are employed on the same farm. As there are the three men employed on the farm, the other cottage available to a farm worker is not necessary for that purpose. There is considerable pressure on the farmer not to let the cottage remain vacant, so he lets it to someone on the understanding that that person will give up possession when the farmer wants the accommodation for a farm worker.
10.15 p.m.
Then one of the sons of the farm worker wishes to get married and remain

in employment on the farm. Is the farmer to be unable to get possession of that cottage? This is a problem which the Minister has suggested is no greater than that concerned with railway workers or social workers, but I think it is. There are so many more employees concerned. In a great many areas stockmen have to have a cottage near their work so that they can be near the stock which they have to look after. It is vitally important that the farmer should not be deterred from letting a cottage vacant at the time to someone outside the farm.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider Amendment No. 124. It would actually bar farmers letting a cottage which they did not immediately need for an agricultural purpose. This problem is different from that of the railway worker and social worker because there are so many more employees in agriculture. The farmer who wants to employ a stockman needs to be able to provide him with a house quickly. If the Minister takes no step to meet this problem it will mean that when a farm cottage falls vacant it will remain vacant until the farmer needs it for another worker. The Minister would not be acting reasonably or sensibly if he did not meet this point.

Mr. Crossman: I must again thank hon. and right hon. Members for their conciseness and brevity in what otherwise would have been a very extended discussion of this problem. These two Clauses are quite distinct. Although both concern the subject of agriculture, nothing else unites them. The second of the two Clauses is more closely linked with the problems of the manse and of the owner-occupier legally than with problems of farming.
I come to the suggested substitution of a third condition which the courts would have to take into account under Clause 27. I have nothing to criticise about the way in which Amendment No. 124 was moved. I do not disagree with anything that was said by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) about the need to emphasise that in this connection three parties are concerned and there is a kind of chain reaction. By the way, I was grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for declaring my interest in this subject. The only question which arises if


we look at this matter practically is whether this particular Amendment is necessary. Wherever possible we have tried to use in the Bill the actual words of previous Acts so that lawyers will not misunderstand.
The Clause as at present drafted does not say that there is merely a choice of greater hardship between the landlord and the tenant. It says:
Whether the efficient management of any agricultural land would be seriously prejudiced unless the premises were available for occupation by a person employed or to be employed by the owner; and
Whether greater hardship would be caused by the suspension of the execution of the order than by its execution without suspension or further suspension.
That may refer to one, two, three, four or many people. The more I look at this problem the more I believe that this provision, which has been taken from the 1933 Act in Schedule (1,h) and is a formulation enjoining on the court to take into account any hardship, means as affecting one, two or three and not merely two persons. Since this is so, I prefer the present form of words.
I turn to the quite different link wih agriculture contained in Amendment No. 124. In discussions with the N.F.U. I told the farmers' representatives that I recognised that this was a genuine problem which should be solved if it can be solved. The only thing I have to add is that there is one problem I face. It is that there was a similar enactment in the Schedule to the 1933 Act, which was repealed in 1954 because it was unsatisfactory. I am not saying that this is exactly the same. I am only saying that I want to accept this in principle, because a very good case has been made out for it. I think that it is a good deal tighter already in the drafting than was the provision which went wrong in 1954.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we wish it to be tied up so that it is used only for this purpose, which is that the farmer must need the house as an agricultural tied cottage. He must, before he let it to the new non-agricultural tenant, have given notice that it was merely for a temporary period and that he might want it back. All the other conditions must be fulfilled. I want to be

absolutely sure that we do not let him do anything else. When the Bill goes to another place, I want to make sure that the Clause does exactly what we all would wish it to do. Therefore, I accept the Amendment in principle in that sense and welcome it as a legitimate addition to the Bill.
It was suggested that, if we did not do this, we would be closing down on the farmer. As a matter of fact, we are doing something positive and new to help him, because already he has this difficulty. Under existing conditions, as I well know, cottages are left vacant precisely because of the difficulty of getting hold of them. In this case we can say that we are doing something positive, good and useful which has not been occasioned by the Bill but which will remove a long-standing source of waste of accommodation in the country. If it is true, as the Union says, that hundreds of agricultural tied cottages are standing empty, this is one of the reasons why. It is, quite literally, because farmers cannot risk letting them for fear that they will not get them back. Provided that we are sure that the Bill does only that, I want to see it written into the Bill when it returns to us from another place. With that proviso, I accept Amendment No. 124.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Minister for his approach to Amendment No. 124. I understand that when the Bill goes to another place he will take the necessary steps, having consulted his legal advisers, to include something of this nature. The arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) will have convinced everybody of the justice of the case.
On Amendment No. 120, in relation to the word "hardship" I accept the Minister's assurance that the drafting of subsection (4) includes the extra cases—the four or five other parties to hardship. Therefore, I understand the Minister's point that the wording of the Amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the Minister's words will be heard far and wide. This Question has caused a great deal of anxiety amongst the farming community which, as I am sure the House will realise, has not been at all happy about the drafting of the Clause.


Subsection (4,c) has caused particular anxiety. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that in any event the existing drafting of the Clause includes—

Mr. Crossman: Does not exclude.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I take the Minister's correction. It does not exclude the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). In view of the Minister's attitude and his acceptance of the principle of Amendment No. 124, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Was it the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment?

Sir M. Redmayne: Formally, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 17, line 23, leave out "and warrant of ejection" and insert:
or warrant of ejection or other like order".

In line 26, leave out "damages arising from unlawful possession" and insert:
compensation to the owner for loss of possession".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 28.—(MEANING OF "PROTECTED TENANCY.")

Amendment made: In page 17, line 34, leave out from "applies" to end of line 35 and insert:
(c) a tenancy of an agricultural holding in England or Wales.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Clause 29.—(THE COURT.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 18, line 18, at the end to insert:
or any jurisdiction of the Court of Session in relation to actions of removing".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, leave out from "Session" to end.

Dr. Mabon: Amendment No. 66 is a consequential drafting Amendment made necessary by the revised form of Clause 26. Subsection (1) of Clause 26 now applies to Scotland and it is therefore necessary to provide in Clause 29 a specific saving for the existing jurisdiction of the Court of Session in relation to actions of removing.
I presume I can make a comment at this juncture on the point which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), or perhaps it would be preferable if I waited until the hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: My Amendment to the Amendment is purely probing. It seems to me rather an extraordinary thing that these words should qualify the saving for the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. It is not clear to me why the hon. Gentleman has proposed this Amendment. By inserting these words he is in some way denuding the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and I would suggest that the Amendment would be better without these words.

Dr. Mabon: It is not the intention that we should do that. In fact, I am advised that we could accept the Amendment except that it would not be in accordance with normal drafting practice.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West prefaced his remarks by saying that his Amendment was exploratory. He has often said that not only is it important that the Statute should be intelligible to lawyers, but also it should be intelligible to laymen. The only reason for leaving these words in is to give a useful aid to the interpretation of the Statute. I am assured by my legal advisers that the

presence of the words is not at all inhibiting on the Court of Session.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's own statements in the past about this, I should have thought that he would have welcomed the retention of the words, rather than wish to move an Amendment to delete them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33.—(FURNISHED HOUSES.)

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 19, line 28, after "contract", insert:
which is not a contract granting the right to occupy a part of a dwelling-house in which the owner has his ordinary residence".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 122, in page 20, line 38, at end insert:
and such a reference relates to a contract which is not a contract granting the right to occupy a part of a dwelling-house in which the owner has his ordinary residence".

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the two Amendments, which concern the Clause to do with furnished lettings, is to limit the extension of the furnished lettings tribunal from those cases in which the owner does not live in the house part of which is let furnished.
In Committee, the Minister agreed that there was a great deal of difference between houses which were let furnished either as a means of attempting to get round the position of the present Rent Act or as a business proposition by people who do not live in the same house, and the position of a person who is the owner of a house and lets part of it as a furnished letting while himself living in the same house.
10.30 p.m.
It seems to me that the existing provision in the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, is wholly sufficient to cover the case where the occupier lives in part of the house, and that it is not necessary to extend it, as is suggested in the Clause, up to the new rateable value of £400 for London or £200 for the rest of the country.
I should now like to say something about Amendment No. 122. This relates solely to Clause 33(6). By subsection (6) the Minister proposes that for the first


time the tenant of a furnished letting may go to the tribunal under the 1946 Act, although in fact notice to quit has already been served upon the tenant. It is accepted that there was in many cases an illogicality that such an application could not be made once a notice to quit had been served—or, should I say, although an application had been made, since the notice to quit still ran. The tenancy would probably cease before the application arrived before the furnished letting tribunal.
I think that the Minister definitely conceded in Committee that this would raise a difficulty, in that where a person had let rooms in his house, in the remaining part of which he resided, and wished for good reason to get rid of his tenant—perhaps because he was a perfect nuisance, or because they could not get on together, or because the tenant deliberately failed to pay his rent—under subsection (6) as it stands, the tenant, or lodger—because lodgers are covered by the Bill provided they have exclusive possession of the rooms which they occupy—could deliberately avoid the notice to quit by promptly applying to the furnished lettings tribunal.
If one refers to subsection (8) one sees that the tribunal now has the power to extend for six months the running of a notice to quit. The person against whom the landlord has reason to get possession, could, after the notice to quit has been served, apply under the 1946 Act and then apply for an extension of time under Section 11 of the 1949 Act, and in those circumstances the notice to quit might not take effect for six months. I think that the Minister will remember the various cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson) put to him in Committee, of the type of difficulty with which the landlord or landlady letting rooms as lodgings could be faced where lodgers deliberately refuse to pay their rent.
Perhaps the wording of the Amendment is not perfect, but by excluding the power to go to the tribunal after a notice to quit has been served in cases where the contract relates to premises in part of which the occupier lives, this would avoid difficulties to the landlord or landlady, whilst at the same time providing the further security which the

Minister proposes for all other tenants of furnished accommodation. I therefore have pleasure in moving the two Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move more than one Amendment, although he has spoken to the two in which he is interested.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) is correct in saying that when we were discussing the Clause and some of its implications in Committee this was one of the problems which we considered—the special position of the landlord who is living in his own furnished house and is sharing accommodation with the tenant. Everybody can see the difficulty.
We wondered whether it was possible to find some way in which we could get a clear definition which would give exemption from the full control of the 1946 Act, as it is being amended, in these cases. We looked, for example, at the New York Regulations which took premises out of control when there was only one letting and where there was sharing of accommodation, but the more we looked at them the more we found difficulties. One of the difficulties was that the Milner Holland inquiries revealed that houses where there was sharing between landlord and tenant were often among those where the worst abuses took place.
It would not do simply to say that in every case where the landlord was living on the premises, they would be taken out of the protection of the Act, because in many of these cases there are difficult and bad relations as a result of the landlord living in a small part of the house and sub-letting the rest of it. That is not the sort of case about which one normally thinks. One usually has in mind the house in which two respectable people live contentedly together in a few rooms. The difficulty is one of definition. If we drew a distinction by limiting the number of tenants in the house, we fell into difficulties from the pyramiding of sub-tenancies. A landlord might live in the premises and have only one tenant, but the tenant might sub-let and have another tenant. In each case they could say, "We are simply sharing accommodation. This is not multiple letting". I am sorry that we have not found a way of getting


round these difficulties and of cutting out of the provisions cases in which the landlord was residing in the premises.
Another point arising from Amendment No. 122 concerned the notice to quit. I was glad that the hon. Member explained what the Amendment meant, because I had found it difficult to follow it. I gather that he wishes to remove from the Bill furnished lettings which take place in the landlord's residence. But these are sometimes the very cases in which protection is most necessary. So much of this arose from the experience of the Milner Holland Committee that I could not advise the House that it would be wise to depart from the proposals in the Clause.

Mr. Graham Page: This Bill vastly extends the control of furnished lettings. The Amendment faces up to a very human problem—a furnished letting in a

house in which the landlord has his home. This problem is being exacerbated by the Bill and by the intention to extend this control. In the earlier stages of the Bill the Minister was in sympathy with us on this point, which concerns letting part of the householder's home and the right of the householder to get the tenant out.

It is not good enough for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say, "We have tried to find a formula but we have failed". If there were a real will to relieve this human problem I am sure that a way could have been found. It is not beyond the wit of man to find words to deal with this problem. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 173.

Division No. 226.]
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mitchell, David


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Emery, Peter
More, Jasper


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Errington, Sir Eric
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Astor, John
Farr, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Atkins, Humphrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Murton, Oscar


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
Neave, Airey


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gammans, Lady
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Peel, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box, Donald
Grieve, Percy
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pym, Francis


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Buxton, Ronald
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Roots, William


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Shepherd, William


Cole, Norman
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Lagden, Godfrey
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Talbot, John E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mathew, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maude, Angus
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Weatherill, Bernard




Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitelaw, William
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mr. Dudley Smith and


Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Alldritt, Walter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Garrow, A.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
O'Malley, Brian


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Hale, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Will


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, Walter


Binns, John
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Boardman, H.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John


Boston, T. G.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Parkin, B. T.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooson, H. E.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Rees, Merlyn


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard
Hoy, James
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Horbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Sheldon, Robert


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Colin
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Small, William


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thornton, Ernest


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Tinn, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Loughlin, Charles
Tuck, Raphael


Dodds, Norman
Lubbock, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Varley, Eric G.


Driberg, Tom
McCann, J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
MacColl, James
Warbey, William


Dunn, James A.
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, Tudor


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Weitzman, David


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ennals, David
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mapp, Charles
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Marsh, Richard



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Floud, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Alan Fitch.


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce

Amendment proposed: In page 19, line 33, leave out from "London" to end of line 34 and insert
£300, in the Special Review Areas in England and Wales (as defined by sections 17(1)(a) and (2), section 25 and the Third Schedule of the Local Government Act 1958) £150, in Scotland

£75, and elsewhere in Great Britain £100".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 145.

Division No. 227.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Armstrong, Ernest
Beaney, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.


Alldritt, Walter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bence, Cyril


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barnett, Joel
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood




Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Binns, John
Hale, Leslie
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Newens, Stan


Boardman, H.
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Oakes, Gordon


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Will


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Padley, Walter


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, H. E.
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parker, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Parkin, B. T.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rees, Merlyn


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Darling, George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Delargy, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Robert


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McCann, J.
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacDermot, Niall
Varley, Eric G.


Floud, Bernard
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Warbey, William


Ford, Ben
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Watkins, Tudor


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Garrow, A.
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Richard
Whitlock, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles
Mikardo, Ian
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce



Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Foster, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Christopher
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Astor, John
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhew, Victor


Awdry, Daniel
Costain, A. P.
Grant, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
Curran, Charles
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dance, James
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Biffen, John
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Black, Sir Cyril
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hastings, Stephen


Box, Donald
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Errington, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy


Buxton, Ronald
Farr, John
Lagden, Godfrey


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Lambton, Viscount







Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Talbot, John E.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Loveys, Walter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


McMaster Stanley
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mathew, Robert
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maude, Angus
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. G.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Miscampbell, Norman
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mitchell, David
Roots, William
Whitelaw, William


More, Jasper
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Shepherd, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George



Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Onslow, Cranley
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Studholme, Sir Henry

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 69, in page 20, line 32, at the end to insert:
(6) The Act of 1946 shall be amended by the insertion of the word "ordinary" before the the word "residence" in section 2(1) of that Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 70, in page 20, line 32, at end insert:
(6) The Act of 1946 shall be amended by the insertion of the word "domiciliary" before the the word "residence" in section 2(1) of that Act.

Mr. Page: This brief Amendment of only one word could be called the "Seaside Landladies' Charter", although it also applies to any short letting. We have been greatly concerned about the extension of the control of letting by this Bill because of the fear that it would create great hardship to landladies—and landlords for that matter—of holiday tenants where those tenants overstayed their bookings and disorganised future bookings, causing great disappointment to other people who had booked to take over the rooms from them.
The Minister has said that our fears were ill-founded on the basis that these holiday lettings are not what he terms contracts for residence, and that the 1946 Act relating to furnished dwellings applies only to such contracts. To make absolutely certain, we have given the right hon. Gentleman an alternative by offering to qualify the word "residence" in the 1946 Act with the word "ordinary", and by making sure that the Bill applies only to occupation for ordinary

residence; or, as an alternative, in Amendment No. 70, to use the word "domiciliary" as specified. It may not be a particularly elegant word, but it has the virtue of making clear that we have in mind a residence for the purpose of a home, as distinct from a holiday letting or booking.
We believe that this is necessary because of the extension of control in this part of the Bill and because it does not bite on this type of letting. We hope that the Minister will be able to accept one of these words given as an alternative.

Mr. MacColl: Yes, we will.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. In view of that, I shall not move Amendment No. 70, having achieved our object with Amendment No. 69.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 21, line 11, at the end to insert:
(9) In section 9(2) of the Act of 1946 (penalty for failure to comply with a notice under section 2(1) of that Act) for the words from "twenty pounds" to the end there shall be substituted the words "fifty pounds and, on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds".
This is a case of our having been rather in advance of history because when we decided to alter the punishment in the Bill for failure to give information in the case of unfurnished lettings we found that we were being rather more generous than the House had been in 1946. It seemed unreasonable to have a harsher penalty for furnished lettings than


for unfurnished lettings. Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to remove the imprisonment provision from the 1946 Act and to extend the monetary penalties in its place.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This follows the line which we urged on the Government in Committee, and, naturally, we welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 21, line 30, to leave out second "and".
Perhaps we can take at the same time Amendment No. 75.

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Mabon: Amendment No. 75 is the Scottish equivalent of the proposed new subsection (9) of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 32, at end insert:
and
(d) in subsection (9), for the reference to section 9(2) of the Act of 1946 there shall be substituted a reference to section 7(2) of the said Act of 1943 (penalty for failure to give information required for registration under that Act), and the words in parenthesis shall be omitted".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 34.—(MORTGAGES OF DWELLING-HOUSES TO WHICH RENT ACTS APPLY.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 21, line 35, after "tenancy" to insert:
existing with the consent of the mortgagee".
The purpose of this Amendment is merely to restrict the effects of the Clause relating to mortgages to the tenancies by the mortgagor which exist with the consent of the mortgagee.

The Attorney-General: Although we think that the Amendment is too restrictive, nevertheless the principle which it seeks to establish is acceptable to the Government, and I will take steps to ensure that the Bill is appropriately amended in another place to give effect to the principle.

Mr. Graham Page: With that welcome assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 22, line 15, after "thereof" to insert:
and of the operation of this Act".
This Amendment arose from a discussion in Committee, and I hope that it meets the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Graham Page: This Amendment partially meets the objections which I put in Committee to the very wide provisions of the Clause about mortgages. I am not entirely satisfied that it really covers the dangers which I raised, but at this stage I welcome it and hope that, without referring to the other Amendments in our name, it might be possible to pursue these at a later stage in another place if we feel after consideration that the Government's Amendment does not quite fit the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38.—(REGULATIONS.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 25, line 4, at the end to insert:
(2) Regulations made under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection may contain provisions modifying Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 to this Act, but no regulations containing such provisions shall have effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
This Amendment arose out of a discussion which we had at the end of the Committee proceedings—as this is nearly the end of these proceedings—when a constructive suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the effect that it would be wise to have power to alter the Schedules. The Amendment would make the regulations under Clause 38 cover the Schedules. The Schedules are in unusual detail in describing the procedure and this was done so that people should see exactly how the rent officers and rent assessment committees would work. We might make a small mistake and be unnecessarily hamstrung about it. Therefore, adopting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would enable us to make orders covering the Schedules, and they would be subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to the Government for adopting the suggestion which I put forward in Committee. I think it right and proper to


take power to amend the procedure set out in the Schedule. One thing I would wish to comment on is the fact that this requires an affirmative Resolution of the House. This is the proper way to deal with an order which amends a Statute and I am very glad to see it. This has not always been done by this Government and I have complained about it each time I have seen that it has not been done. I welcome it now.

Mr. Cole: On one point—and I am probably pushing at an open door—why does it say in the existing subsection (2), which remains there, that regulations under this Clause, which means any part of this Clause must be subject to annulment, yet the (2) which we are putting in requires affirmative Resolution? Does the existing (2) qualify what we are putting in? What is the position?

Mr. MacColl: This provides for an affirmative Resolution because, naturally, when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is in a benevolent mood, we all want to do what we can to keep him in it, because difficulties arise when he gets out of it. He said that he was anxious that we should make a distinction between these. The other regulations simply deal with the notice and the procedure and are not altering the substance of the Clause. I think that the hon. Member for Crosby would agree with that.

Mr. Cole: The Parliamentary Secretary has not taken my point. The existing subsection says, "Regulations made under this Section", which, presumably, covers the whole lot.

Mr. MacColl: I will look at that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 7, at the end to insert
except in a case falling within the preceding subsection."—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 44.—(REPEALS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 27, line 24, to leave out "and" and to insert "or".
It is necessary to pick up the wording of Clause 2(6,a) of the Protection From Eviction Act in relation to the Scottish translation of the phrase "order for

possession". This is a drafting Amendment, but an important one in order to leave it wide enough to cover such matters as the warrants of summary ejection.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 31, after "18", insert:
(Appointment of rent tribunal by president of rent assessment panel)".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Schedule 1.—(AMENDMENT OF THE RENT ACTS IN RELATION TO REGULATED TENANCIES.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 27, leave out "(1) to" and insert "(2) and".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Schedule 2.—(RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 30, line 15, at the end to insert:
for such areas, comprising together every registration area, as the Minister may from time to time determine".
This is one of a series of Amendments to which I referred when we were discussing the parent Clause. I said that the matter would come up later in our discussion. The Amendment, and several others, cover Schedules 2, 3 and 4 and I asked the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to have a copy of the Schedules as redrafted to see how they worked out. I will, therefore, explain in general terms rather than in detail the effect of the Amendment.
The effect is that it will be possible for the Minister to have a more flexible arrangement in regard to the rent assessment panel areas. He will be able to have one panel covering a number of rent assessment areas and two vice-presidents. It is not intended that, as a general rule, there should be two vice-presidents in each case, but it is likely that in London it will be necessary, and the Amendment gives my right hon. Friend power to make that arrangement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having had the courtesy


to let me have a draft of the Schedules as they will appear. With the aid of them I was not able to detect any manifest error in the provision and, therefore, I could not profitably ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 16, leave out paragraph 2.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Amendment proposed: In line 23, leave out "two" and insert "one".

—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. Cole: I merely wanted to ask whether, in this respect, one person could act in respect of two offices.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 24, leave out from "president" to end of line 25 and insert:
of the panel, and one or more such persons to act as vice-president or vice-presidents".

In line 27, leave out "registration".

In line 29, leave out from "area" to second "or" in line 30.

In line 31, at end insert:
or, as the case may be, one of the vice-presidents".

In line 34, after "vice-president" insert:
(or, as the case may be, one of the vice-presidents)".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 30, line 40, after "may", insert:
with the consent of the parties".
This Amendment arises out of a discussion we had when the present drafting of the Bill was criticised because it enabled the president to arrange that the chairman sit alone. This was felt to be unwise in view of the fact that this was a tribunal against which there was no appeal.
I put the other point of view that in some circumstances, where there was general agreement, people would want to have a case taken. I suggested that it might be limited to cases where the parties consented, as in civil proceedings on matters of negotiation between the parties where there was no question of criminal charges.
I hope that this will seem to be a reasonable arrangement, and one which

will enable unnecessary hold-ups to be avoided.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(REGISTRATION OF RENTS.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 33, line 22, to leave out "seven" and to insert "fourteen".

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that we discuss with this Amendment, Amendment No. 102, in page 33, line 22, to leave out "seven" and to insert "twenty-eight", and Amendment No. 104, in page 33, line 27, to leave out "seven" and to insert "twenty-eight".

Mr. MacColl: These Amendments deal with the period within which information must be supplied to a rent assessment committee. In discussing this in Committee we agreed that there should be an increase in the time allowed. We think that doubling it to fourteen days is reasonable, and we would hope that the House would accept that as giving a reasonable time for people to move and think about it, and at the same time not hold up proceedings—something which we want to avoid.

Mr. Graham Page: On a previous and similar Amendment the learned Attorney-General compromised for 21 days. Could the hon. Gentleman not be so generous this time?

Mr. Speaker: Not on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 33, line 27, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 34, to leave out lines 16 to 34.
This Amendment and the next seven Amendments are consequential on changes already made in the drafting of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 34, line 45, leave out "and 16".

In page 35, line 2, after "certificate", insert:
or, as the case may be, whether the condition of the dwelling-house is the same as at the date of the certificate".

In line 3, leave out from "that" to "he" and insert:
the works have been so carried out or, as the case may be, the dwelling-house is in that condition".

In line 20, leave out from "satisfied" to "as" in line 21.

In page 36, line 6, leave out "and 16".

In line 8 leave out "either".

In line 9, leave out from "dwelling-house" to end of line 10.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Schedule 4.—(CERTIFICATES OF FAIR RENT.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 36, line 25, after "intending", to insert "(a)".
This and the next three Amendments are designed to fit into the same operation. They deal with a point which was discussed in Committee on 17th June. In the Schedule there is provision for obtaining a certificate of fair rent by the landlord in a case where there is a new house or a house which has been converted. These Amendments apply the same procedure to cases where a house has not previously been let and enable the landlord with a new letting to go to the rent officer, and if he can satisfy the rent officer that the arrangements are fair, he gets his rent certificate. We think that this will encourage people to let houses because it simplifies the procedure and facilitates advertisements.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These Amendments arise from suggestions made by my hon. Friends and myself in Committee. They will, I think, noticeably improve the procedure in the circumstances which the Parliamentary Secretary outlined. They will diminish the difficulties for landlords in getting ahead with tenancies. Naturally, we welcome them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 36, line 27, after "dwelling-house", insert:
or
(b) to let on a regulated tenancy a dwelling-house which is not for the time being

subject to such a tenancy and which satisfies the condition that either no rent for it is registered under this Act or that not less than three years have elapsed since the date mentioned in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act".

In line 28, leave out from "which" to end of line 31 and insert:
in the opinion of the rent officer would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house or, as the case may be, of the dwelling-house after the erection or conversion or after the completion of the improvements".

In line 39, after first "and", insert:
(except in the case mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of that paragraph)".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Schedule 7.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 42, line 23, column 3, at the beginning, to insert:
In section 11, subsection (3) and in subsection (7) the words 'or (3)'".
This is where we came in. This and the next two Amendments are consequential Amendments to the Schedule in the light of new Clauses Nos. 3 and 4.

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Allason: May I just congratulate the Minister on succeeding in repealing another subsection or so of the notorious Rent Act, thereby nearly doubling the amount that he has succeeded in repealing on this occasion?
Further Amendments made: In line 23, column 3, at end insert:
In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, the words "subsection (1) or (3) of", and paragraph 13.
In column 3, leave out line 24 and insert:
In Schedule 5, in paragraph 2(1) the words "or an order made under subsection (3) thereof", paragraph 2(2)(b), in paragraph 3(1) head (b) and the word "and" preceding head (b), paragraph 4, in paragraph 5(d) the words "or in an order under subsection (3) of that section;" and paragraph 15.
In Schedule 6, paragraph 25(1) and, in paragraph 25(2), the words "or any order thereunder" and the words from "or the date" to the end.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

Orders of the Day — WAR BY ACCIDENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Speaker, at this moment at least five American Polaris submarines are lying submerged off the Chinese coast. Each is armed with 16 missiles, each, in turn, capable of delivering, 1,500 miles away, a warhead many times as terrible, as powerful, as the one which devastated Hiroshima. If one of those warheads were delivered on Peking or Hanoi, either by design or accident, then it would be difficult to prevent a world war fought with hydrogen bombs on both sides from developing within days or even within hours.
As Aneurin Bevan once said, "There is no label on an H Bomb". If one is dropped on Russia or China, the Russians and the Chinese will not set up a commission to decide where the bomb came from. They would probably wipe out all the possible sources from which it might have been delivered.
The greatest danger today, it seems to me, lies in wars starting by accident. This is the most likely cause of war, because of the instant state of readiness which is maintained, and because of the growing number of nuclear weapons and of nuclear Powers. The Minuteman, for example, can be launched within 30 seconds and, once launched, cannot, unlike a plane, be recalled. One-third of the United States Air Force is at 15 minutes' alert, and some of its bombers are always airborne with the H-bomb aboard. If the fighting in Asia involves the direct confrontation of East and West, as its extension is tending to do, and if the recent relaxation of tension disappears, as I am afraid is already beginning to happen, then the danger of war by accident immensely increases.
Accidents do not by themselves cause war, but decisions based on accidents can. The kind of response made by a Government to the dropping of a bomb on its territory will largely depend on the surrounding circumstances, and the current international situation. If there is already fighting in the area, as in South-East Asia,

then there is not much hope of an accident being regarded and responded to as other than deliberate.
Reports by military spokesmen mostly aim at showing that a serious accident cannot happen. I profoundly hope they are right, though there are so many different ways in which accidents can happen that, despite all the precautions, the odds are that sooner or later one will take place.
Even if our precautions are infallible, can we be so certain that the Russians cannot make a mistake, or the French, or the Chinese, or, if they obtain control of nuclear weapons, the Germans? Recently, two fanatics, with 200 lbs. of dynamite on a bicycle, blew up the American Embassy in Saigon. I very much doubt whether Moscow, Peking, Hanoi or any other capital planned or knew anything about this incident; yet it undoubtedly worsened the prospects for peace. Is it not possible that two fanatics in control not of dynamite, but of nuclear bombs, might have an even more terrible result?
Returning to the question of Polaris submarines off the Chinese coast, by next year there will be 82 Polaris submarines in operation throughout the world, each with a crew of 100, with 27 of the vessels constantly at sea. One man could not launch the missiles alone, because they have been so arranged and designed that collaboration between two or three individuals is required, and crews are constantly screened for signs of emotional instability. That check may be 100 per cent. effective, though, here again, I have my doubts. But there are other possibilities. A crazy submarine commander could give to his crew simulated instructions from the supreme headquarters, or a perfectly sane commander could misinterpret a signal, or a signal received might not be authentic.
What is there to prevent the possibility of crazy commanders higher up the line of command? According to the Mershon Report, 43 per cent. of all discharges from the United States forces are for psychiatric reasons, and we can remember James Forrestal, the United States Secretary for the Army, who jumped out of a window shouting that the Red Army had landed when he heard an air raid siren.
There are others holding positions of great power who, while not declared mentally unsound, are itching to use their terrible weapons, and whom not all of us would feel too happy about in a crisis. General Nathan Twining, for instance, has said:
If it were not for the politicians, I would settle the war in one afternoon by bombing Soviet Russia.
General Orvil Anderson, Commander of the United States Air War College, has said:
I would be happy to bomb Russia. Just give me the order to do it.
God save us from our friends!
One assurance we are given by the military experts is that there are nuclear locks built into the American Polaris warheads. However, just as the most complicated combination locks of safes have been picked by safe-breakers, so can electronic locks. What is more, according to an article by Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express, for whose reports I have the highest respect—Chapman Pincher's, I mean—British Polaris warheads do not have such locks. He wrote last September:
The American Government urged Britain to fit a radio-lock in the British-made Polaris warheads when it agreed to supply the missiles at Nassau nearly two years ago. No such device is included in the Polaris warheads currently being built at the weapons station at Aldermaston in Hertfordshire.
Mr. Pincher reported that the British Government refused for several reasons. First, they said that extreme care is exercised in selecting our Polaris crews. Secondly, it would show that Britain's so-called independent nuclear deterrent was not independent. Thirdly, the lock is a complex device which would be expensive and would unnecessarily complicate operational use.
I have had a word with Chapman Pincher today, and he states categorically that he has been told officially that these locks do not exist on British warheads. That is something that needs examination.
This third point regarding delays in operations is serious. According to Dr. J. C. Phelps, writing in the "Atomic Scientist Journal":
A weapons system could be surrounded by so many technical safeguards that it could not actually be used as intended in a crisis".

At least 12 major accidents have so far occurred involving nuclear weapons. On a number of occasions the early warning radar screens have picked up objects which were thought to be enemy planes and they later turned out to be something quite different. An hon. Member of this House who served with radar during the last war tells me that the difficulty was to distinguish, say, between a flock of birds rising from the water and more serious objects. This difficulty, he says, has not been entirely overcome. Indeed, as radar becomes more sensitive it is likely to pick up the wrong target.
Then there was the case when the rising of the moon confused the radar screens. On such occasions planes are dispatched to the fail-safe points surrounding Russia. They do not pass beyond those points without a positive further order. What troubles me is this. What appeared on our radar screens was a mistake. What, no doubt, appeared on the Soviet radar screens was not a mistake. It was actually our bombers proceeding towards them. Suppose they reacted by moving their planes and suppose these movements were again picked up in the West. These would be real targets and not imaginary ones.
Take the gripping American novel "Fail Safe" and the film made from it. In at least one direction its prophecies have proved accurate. The book describes vital conversations taking place on the "hot" telephone line between Washington and Moscow. At the time when the book was written this "hot" line did not exist. Let us hope that other prophecies in the book do not prove equally accurate.
Consider the situation which arises in this book. Because an electronic device goes wrong, a flight of six U.S. bombers receive the signal to proceed beyond their fail-safe stations and fly to Moscow. At American headquarters it is realised that a terrible mistake has been made. The planes are radioed to return. The message is not received by the planes as the Russian defences have jammed wireless communications between the pilots and the bases. What is the American President to do? He gets on the "hot" line, informs the Russian Prime Minister and and asks him to shoot down the American planes before they reach Moscow


with their load of bombs. One of the six, however, gets through the net.
Now comes the dilemma for the Soviet leader. He believes that the President is telling the truth and that a mistake has, indeed, been made. But he, too, has his "tough" generals to deal with. Could he or any leader possibly accept the obliteration of 6 million men, women and children without retaliation and not be swept aside himself, to enable the counter-attack to proceed? Some kind of agreement, however difficult to reach, between Russia and America, that one bomb will not instantaneously release massive reprisal, seems to be worthy of serious consideration.
There are some questions that I would like to ask the Minister. Fighter bombers flown by one man today carry nuclear bombs. What safeguards can be or are applied to single-seater tactical aircraft? They are not supposed to fly near the Russian frontiers with nuclear weapons on board. Is this precaution watertight? What about tactical nuclear artillery available to N.A.T.O. forces in Europe? Is it correct that West Germany is producing at Karlsruhe "clean" plutonium in considerable quantities and that this is of value only for war purposes?
To conclude, several hundred thousand missiles and bombs are waiting to be delivered at a moment's notice. We are likely to live under this shadow for years ahead. It seems to me that the best ways to prevent their being released are to work for such a lessening of tension between East and West that a decision to launch war as a result of an accident would be intolerable to both sides; to prevent any further spread of nuclear weapons to additional Governments; and to reduce the number of weapon delivery vehicles and all other armaments—in other words, to end the arms race.

11.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Bruce Millan): My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has raised an extremely important subject, and I hope that some of the things which I shall say to him in reply will reassure him about some of the points which he raised. His last point is the most important of all—that until we have

a general disarmament agreement there must obviously be dangers in the present situation, in which certain Powers have these terrible weapons in their hands.
It is not possible for me to answer in detail some of the questions which he asked, because security considerations are involved. I must also make it clear that anything that I say can be said only from the point of view of the British Government and deal with the precautions which we take to make certain that accidental war will not break out.
As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, the Russians and Americans are also involved. If other countries have nuclear weapons—one thinks of France and China—or if a number of other countries obtain them in the future, the question will arise whether they have taken adequate precautions to prevent the danger of accidental war arising from the actions or reactions of Governments.
This is an extremely complex subject, and my hon. Friend will understand that I can answer only from the point of view of the actions which we take in this country. My hon. Friend dealt almost exclusively with questions of mechanical or human failure, but there are other possible causes of accidental war, for example political miscalculations.
I will start by making one or two general political points, because these are relevant to the points which my hon. Friend raised. First, it is obvious that if there are certain dangers—and I hope that they are limited dangers in the present situation—when a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, these dangers will be immensely greater if there is a considerable proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is one of the Government's major purposes that there should be no further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and one of the main objectives of our foreign policy, through disarmament negotiations and elsewhere, is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is very important in the context of this debate.
Similarly, it is extremely important that both sides should be better informed than they were in the past and than they are at the moment about what is going on. This makes the "hot" line between Moscow and Washington, which was


established just two years ago, extremely important. If there is a direct communications link of this sort there are many circumstances of the kind which my hon. Friend postulated in which potentially extremely serious situations could be prevented from developing into war by means of the "hot" line communication.
There are a number of other things which could be done to give each side information about the movements of the other, for example, proposals for the establishment of observation posts in the N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact areas at major ports, railway stations, motor highways and air bases. Both the United States a id the Soviet Union have put forward at different times proposals along these lines, but, unfortunately, there has not yet been agreement between Russia and the West on an acceptable observation posts system.
The Western position, broadly speaking, is that this is something which we could decide not in complete isolation from disarmament negotiation generally but as a separate issue, whereas the Russian point of view is that this is something which must be linked with very much wider questions of disarmament. This is something to which, from the British point of view, we attach considerable importance and is the kind of thing which my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will certainly be pushing forward in any disarmament negotiations.
These are more general political matters, but are very relevant to the kind of things which my hon. Friend raised. To deal with some of the specific points which he put to me, obviously, short of a general disarmament agreement and while we still have nuclear weapons held by the West and the Soviet Union these weapons are bound to be held in a state of literally instant readiness. If we are to have a deterrent and it is to be credible there has to be a considerable state of readiness at any time. It is this state of instant readiness that worries my hon. Friend very much. He feels that if we calculate the state of readiness too precisely there may be circumstances in which the whole thing may be set off because of a miscalculation of the kind which he described.
On that point—and this is absolutely vital—these nuclear weapons in the West

are—and presumably the same is true in the Soviet Union—subject to political control. There is no question of handing these over to military commanders and allowing them to use them at their military discretion. Nuclear weapons are under political control.
This is a complicated subject and, obviously, I cannot go into details tonight, but I take, for example, the V-bomber force in the United Kingdom at present. There is a whole complicated system of communications and control which ultimately goes to the Prime Minister himself. In other words, the ultimate decision would be taken by the Prime Minister, and in circumstances in which he is already in direct communication with the White House and with N.A.T.O. Therefore, there is political control, and this is something which is extremely important.
On the question of procedures, we provide that even if a decision were taken to launch the V-bomber force into the air that would not be the end of the matter. My hon. Friend talked about the "fail safe" point. What happens is that if the aeroplanes were to go beyond that point they would have to receive a positive message to proceed. If they did not receive that message or if there was any ambiguity about that message there would be no question of their proceeding. They would turn back.
This, again, is a matter which involves technical and security considerations, but I assure my hon. Friend, having looked into this carefully, that the procedures which are laid down provide that the message must be clear and unambiguous and must be subject to a quite complicated authentication procedure which would identify the intent and origin of the message beyond all doubt. Therefore, we have procedures, which are as watertight as we can make them, which would mean that there would be no question of proceeding beyond a certain point without definite instructions to do that.
Similarly, talking in mechanical terms of the weapons themselves and their release mechanisms and the possibility of their failing in some way, all I can say is that there are extremely detailed precautions taken in the design of the weapons, in their handling equipment and in the procedures which are followed in


handling them both on the ground and in the air, including, of course, the switching sequences to be followed by air crews before a weapon actually becomes live.
We have a nuclear weapons safety committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Solly Zuckerman, and including very high-ranking officers and other departmental experts as well as outside specialists, which deals in very minute detail with this whole question of nuclear safety. There are very detailed procedures laid down.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend has been speaking of the fail-safe procedures with reference to aircraft and bombers. There cannot be fail-safe procedures for a missile. One cannot have a permissive link for a tactical or battlefield weapon. I gather that my hon. Friend is about to come to missiles. Will he deal with that point?

Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend says, I was talking about the V-bomber system. I was not talking about I.C.B.M.s, to which different considerations apply, obviously. But that does not affect the point I was making. I was speaking originally from the British Government's point of view. As regards tactical nuclear weapons, the answer I gave about political control applies here as well as to strategic nuclear weapons, and this is where the safety procedures are involved.
I have read the article on Polaris submarines to which my hon. Friend referred. Obviously, I cannot deal with it in detail this evening, but I must tell the House that, so far as that article implied that safety procedures on British Polaris submarines would be inferior to the safety precautions on American Polaris submarines, it is completely misinformed. There is no question of there being any inferior safety devices in British Polaris submarines.
Now, the possibility of false radar warnings. There have been a few well-publicised examples of spurious indications on radar screens, but my information is directly contrary to what my hon. Friend said. In fact, as radar equipments become more sophisticated and more effective, the danger of a misinterpretation of a signal becomes less. If we take the

worst possible example, the identifying of a missile, and thinking in terms of four minutes' warning or something like that, it must be remembered that the ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales, in Yorkshire, is linked with similar B.M.E.W.S.s in other parts of the world, and that there would be no question of any irrevocable action being taken simply on the basis of a reading at Fylingdales and without this being authenticated from a number of different sources. I can assure my hon. Friend that the position as regards radar warnings is, in fact, improving and not getting worse.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of human error, and human beings suffering from the mental strain of working either as V-bomber crew or in any other connection with nuclear weapons. Of course, people who are selected for V-bomber crews in the first place—this will be similarly true of Polaris crews later—are subject to vetting procedures which include the whole question of their character in terms of integrity, stability and the rest, and I can assure my hon. Friend, having visited V-bomber stations, that a very close watch is kept on the health and general behaviour of V-bomber crews. I am not suggesting that there is any sort of special spying on them. This is not the position at all. But they live in such a closely-knit community that the kind of mental strain which my hon. Friend is worried about would soon become apparent to their colleagues in the crews and to the station commander.
Therefore, I do not think that mental stress and human failing are likely to lead to the accidental release of nuclear weapons, and the procedure I described earlier for the use of the weapons provides, in the case of the V-bombers, for at least two or more of the crew out of the five members, so one individual is not likely to do anything that is absolutely disastrous in the way my hon. Friend fears.
Of course, this is an extremely difficult problem and I hope that nothing I have said can be taken as sounding complacent or as suggesting that we are not concerned to see that our procedures are made as foolproof as we can possibly make them. I assure the House that a considerable amount of care and attention has been given to this whole question


of the procedures, which are as foolproof as is humanly possible to make them in the state of our present knowledge about all these problems.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I thank my hon. Friend—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Twelve o'clock.